Skip to main content
OrthoVellumOrthopaedic Exam Prep
Pricing
About OrthoVellum
OrthoVellum
A living orthopaedic atlas

Exam-focused orthopaedic references, a question bank, viva practice, and spaced-repetition revision β€” with every clinical claim traceable to its source. Content is educational only and is not a substitute for local supervision, clinical judgement, or institutional policy.


Library

  • Clinical Topics
  • Blog
  • Site Updates
  • Content Methodology

Company

  • About Us
  • Authors & Disclosure
  • Editorial Team
  • Editorial Policy
  • Advertising Policy

Legal

  • Terms of Service
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Medical Disclaimer
  • Copyright & DMCA

Support

  • Support OrthoVellum
  • Help Center
  • Contact
  • Accessibility
Evidence. Clarity. Practice.

Β© 2026 OrthoVellum. For educational purposes only.

Not medical advice. Verify clinically important information against current local guidance.

Shoulder Arthroplasty Revision

Operative SurgeryShoulder & Elbow
Shoulder & ElbowAdvancedCore Procedure

Shoulder Arthroplasty Revision

Comprehensive surgical technique guide for revision shoulder arthroplasty including anatomic TSA and conversion to reverse shoulder arthroplasty

Procedure console
25 minutes
Read
0
Sections
advanced
Level
Peer-reviewed Β· 2026-06-20
High-yield overview

Extended deltopectoral approach, component extraction, bone-deficiency management, soft-tissue reconstruction and conversion to a reverse | advanced–expert

RSA60–70% of revisions
40%Aseptic loosening (commonest)
5 zonesNerve danger structures
90–180 minTypical duration
Critical Must-Knows
  • Revision is driven by aseptic loosening (glenoid about 40 percent, humeral about 15 percent), instability (20 percent), infection (5 to 15 percent in revision series), periprosthetic fracture (10 percent), rotator-cuff failure and unexplained pain with well-fixed components.
  • Rule out infection in every revision: aspirate for cell count and hold cultures for 14 days for Cutibacterium acnes, which is found in 25 to 30 percent of presumed aseptic revisions. A preoperative CT with three-dimensional reconstruction is mandatory for bone-stock assessment β€” plain radiographs are inadequate for revision planning.
  • Component extraction is where bone is lost and fractured: uncemented stems come out with a slap-hammer extractor, but a well-fixed cemented stem needs a humeral window osteotomy or an extended osteotomy for safe cement removal β€” forced extraction fractures the shaft.
  • Conversion to a reverse now accounts for 60 to 70 percent of shoulder revisions because it tolerates cuff deficiency and bone loss. The deltoid is non-negotiable β€” a reverse cannot function without it, so protect the axillary nerve throughout.

When & Why


You revise a shoulder arthroplasty for one of several distinct failure modes. Establishing which one β€” and excluding infection before assuming an aseptic cause β€” determines the entire operation. The four commonest modes, with their typical share of revision work, are:

40% Β· Aseptic loosening

The commonest cause; glenoid more often than humerus. Progressive radiolucent lines greater than 2 mm, component tilt or migration, mechanical pain on loading.

20% Β· Instability

Recurrent subluxation or dislocation. Causes include subscapularis failure (anterior), component malposition (excess retroversion), glenoid bone loss, or cuff failure with anterosuperior escape.

5–15% Β· Infection

Higher than the 0.5 to 2 percent of a primary. Cutibacterium (Propionibacterium) acnes in 25 to 30 percent and indolent β€” it mimics aseptic loosening, so rule it out in every case.

10% Β· Periprosthetic fracture

Traumatic or atraumatic (osteoporotic or stress). Proximal metaphysis is most common; glenoid fracture is rare but catastrophic. May occur intraoperatively at the index procedure.

Two further indications complete the picture. Rotator-cuff failure presents with progressive superior migration (loss of the acromiohumeral interval), subscapularis rupture with internal-rotation loss, or pseudoparalysis, and it mandates conversion to a reverse. Unexplained pain with well-fixed components is the hardest indication and demands careful patient selection β€” first exclude infection, nerve injury (EMG), cervical spine pathology (MRI neck) and complex regional pain syndrome, because outcomes are poor when no mechanical cause is found. ### Mandatory preoperative workup Every revision gets the same complete workup. Skipping any component is how infections and bone-loss surprises derail the case. Rule out infection (all cases). Check serum ESR and CRP, knowing they are elevated in only about half of infections and are often normal in low-grade disease β€” a normal result does not exclude infection. Aspirate the joint whenever there is any suspicion, and interpret it against shoulder-specific thresholds:

Synovial WBC count
Threshold
Greater than 1,100 cells/mmΒ³ concerning; greater than 3,000 likely septic
Significance
Shoulder-specific periprosthetic-infection thresholds
PMN differential
Threshold
Greater than 70 percent polymorphs
Significance
Supports infection
Cultures
Threshold
Aerobic and anaerobic, held for 14 days
Significance
Catches slow-growing Cutibacterium acnes
Serum ESR and CRP
Threshold
Elevated in roughly half of infections; often normal in low-grade disease
Significance
Low sensitivity β€” a normal value does not exclude infection
Adjuncts
Threshold
Synovial alpha-defensin, leukocyte esterase
Significance
Useful when aspiration is equivocal
Joint aspiration and serum interpretation in revision shoulder arthroplasty
TestThresholdSignificance
Synovial WBC countGreater than 1,100 cells/mmΒ³ concerning; greater than 3,000 likely septicShoulder-specific periprosthetic-infection thresholds
PMN differentialGreater than 70 percent polymorphsSupports infection
CulturesAerobic and anaerobic, held for 14 daysCatches slow-growing Cutibacterium acnes
Serum ESR and CRPElevated in roughly half of infections; often normal in low-grade diseaseLow sensitivity β€” a normal value does not exclude infection
AdjunctsSynovial alpha-defensin, leukocyte esteraseUseful when aspiration is equivocal

Assess bone stock with CT (mandatory). A CT of the shoulder with three-dimensional reconstruction (thin cuts under 2 mm) defines the glenoid bone-loss pattern (central, peripheral or combined), classifies the deficiency as mild (less than 10 mm depth), moderate (10 to 15 mm) or severe (greater than 15 mm or medial-wall breach), and evaluates the humeral canal diameter, cortical thickness and any prior cement mantle. Plan component sizes and the grafting strategy from this scan β€” radiographs alone are inadequate. Assess the soft tissues. An MRI or ultrasound evaluates rotator-cuff integrity (subscapularis, supraspinatus, infraspinatus); a deficient cuff pushes the decision toward a reverse. Confirm deltoid function and axillary-nerve integrity, and assess passive range under anaesthetic for adhesive capsulitis. Obtain the previous operative records. Request all prior notes and implant stickers to document the previous approach, component types and sizes, any complications and any infection history β€” this drives the extraction plan. Optimise the patient. Optimise bone health (calcium, vitamin D, consider a DEXA scan), mandate smoking cessation, achieve diabetic control (HbA1c less than 7 percent), and check nutritional status (albumin greater than 3.5 g/dL, lymphocyte count greater than 1,500) and cardiac risk in the elderly or comorbid. Consent specifically for the higher revision risks: nerve injury (3 to 8 percent), infection (5 to 15 percent in revision), periprosthetic fracture, instability, stiffness, and re-revision of 10 to 20 percent at five years β€” with pain relief and range of motion lower than after a primary. Counsel that deltoid or axillary-nerve injury is catastrophic because a reverse cannot function without the deltoid.

The Operation


The goal is to revise the failed construct through an extensile deltopectoral exposure that protects the deltoid and the axillary nerve, remove the components without sacrificing bone (using a humeral window or extended osteotomy for well-fixed cement), sample for occult infection, reconstruct the bone deficiency, and most often convert to a reverse β€” which is more forgiving of cuff failure and bone loss. The exposure is laid out in full as the first steps below, and in depth on the deltopectoral approach to the shoulder page.

AP shoulder radiograph of a shoulder arthroplasty
AP shoulder radiograph of a shoulder arthroplasty, the glenoid and stemmed humeral components in place.Credit: OrthoVellum surgical illustration

Operative sequence

Step 1Position, setup & landmarks
  • Beach-chair position, 30 to 45 degrees upright, head secured in a headrest avoiding excessive extension, arm free-draped to allow manipulation.
  • Mark the bony landmarks: acromion, clavicle, coracoid, the deltopectoral groove, and the deltoid insertion.
  • Confirm the nerve-monitoring baseline and that the extraction kit, long high-speed burrs, flexible osteotomes, oscillating saw, cerclage cables and strut allografts are available before draping.
Step 2Skin incision β€” extended deltopectoral
  • Use the previous scar wherever possible to avoid skin bridges and necrosis, and extend it proximally and/or distally as needed.
  • Standard length runs from the clavicle to the deltoid insertion (15 to 18 cm); extend proximally along the clavicle or distally to the mid-humerus for stem extraction or a long-stem replacement.
  • Raise full-thickness subcutaneous flaps to minimise skin necrosis.
Step 3Superficial dissection β€” the deltopectoral interval
  • Identify the deltopectoral interval using the cephalic vein as the landmark.
  • The cephalic vein may be taken laterally with the deltoid (preserving venous drainage) or medially with the pectoralis (easier exposure); in revision it is often thrombosed or scarred and may need ligation.
Step 4Deep exposure β€” the structures at risk
  • Identify the conjoint tendon on the medial border early β€” the musculocutaneous nerve enters it 3 to 8 cm (mean 5 to 6 cm) distal to the coracoid.
  • Partially release the pectoralis major insertion (1 to 2 cm, tag for repair) for exposure; protect the deltoid origin on the clavicle and acromion and never detach it.
  • The axillary nerve runs on the deep surface of the deltoid 5 to 7 cm below the acromion and crosses the inferior capsule at the 6 o'clock position β€” identify it before any inferior release.
  • Stay lateral to the conjoint tendon and avoid aggressive medial retraction to protect the brachial plexus and axillary vessels.
Step 5Enhancing exposure
  • Release the rotator interval superiorly (between subscapularis and supraspinatus).
  • Carefully medialise the conjoint tendon, protecting the musculocutaneous nerve.
  • Extend superiorly along the clavicle to release the clavipectoral fascia, and inferiorly to the mid-humerus when a long stem is planned.
  • Free deltoid adhesions to the proximal humerus, which are common in revision.
Step 6Subscapularis management
  • Assess subscapularis quality (thickness, vascularity, Goutallier grade on MRI) β€” it is often deficient, scarred or fatty-infiltrated, and may be absent in multiply-revised shoulders.
  • Lesser tuberosity osteotomy is preferred when bone stock is adequate: a 10 to 15 mm thick by 25 to 30 mm wide piece taken 3 to 5 mm medial to the bicipital groove, elevated with the subscapularis, repaired at closure with transosseous sutures or anchors (non-union risk 5 to 10 percent).
  • If osteotomy is not feasible, use a subscapularis peel (release off bone, elevate with capsule, stay sutures for repair); for severe scarring or contracture use a slide off the scapular neck.
  • If converting to a reverse, subscapularis is less critical β€” attempt repair if tissue is adequate, otherwise accept the deficiency and consider pectoralis major transfer in the young, active patient.
Step 7Capsular release & atraumatic dislocation
  • Release the rotator interval, then the inferior capsule while protecting the axillary nerve (identify and retract it inferiorly), then the posterior capsule with gentle external rotation.
  • A near 360-degree capsulectomy is usually needed for adequate exposure; remove all scar and adhesions.
  • Aim for full passive range before any extraction attempt β€” inadequate release is the leading cause of intraoperative fracture.
Step 8Humeral component extraction β€” uncemented stem
  • Complete the capsular release first; achieve atraumatic dislocation before any extraction attempt.
  • Attach a universal extractor to the Morse taper and apply steady axial force with a slap hammer β€” avoid eccentric force, which fractures the shaft.
  • For a well-fixed uncemented stem, work flexible osteotomes around the proximal stem; ultrasonic tools may help disrupt the bone-implant interface.
  • If it is resistant after three to four attempts, stop and proceed to a humeral window (forced extraction fractures the humerus).
Step 9Well-fixed cemented stem β€” humeral window osteotomy or extended osteotomy
  • Direct cement removal with a burr and flexible osteotomes is reserved only for poorly fixed cement β€” it is slow and high-risk when the cement is well-fixed.
  • Humeral window osteotomy (preferred for well-fixed cement): mark an anterior window starting 2 to 3 cm distal to the pectoralis major insertion, 8 to 12 cm long (matched to cement extent on CT) and about one-third of the circumference wide; cut the four sides with an oscillating saw, lift the free piece, remove cement under direct vision, extract the stem, then replace the window and fix it with 2 to 3 cerclage cables (add a plate or strut allograft if the cortex is thin).
  • Extended osteotomy: when cement extends beyond the deltoid insertion, make an anterior cortical osteotomy just lateral to the bicipital groove, 10 to 18 cm long, hinge it laterally on its soft-tissue sleeve, remove cement and stem under vision, then fix with 3 to 4 cables.
Step 10Glenoid component extraction
  • Polyethylene component: work curved osteotomes around the periphery angled toward the keel or pegs (not toward the joint line), loosen the cement circumferentially, then use a burr along the keel/peg and an osteotome to complete removal; preserve bone stock and avoid aggressive reaming.
  • Metal-backed component: remove accessible screws (burr a stripped head, remove the baseplate, extract the remnant), disimpact the baseplate with osteotomes, and trephine or burr a well-fixed central post.
  • Reverse component: remove the humeral polyethylene liner (snap-out or screw-out), then the glenosphere (Morse taper with an extractor and slap hammer, or screw-out), then the baseplate if it is being revised; peripheral and central screws may be difficult to access.
Step 11Intraoperative tissue sampling
  • Take the samples after component removal and before irrigation.
  • Obtain 5 to 6 separate samples from different sites β€” the interface membrane around the components, the glenoid bone bed, the humeral canal and capsular tissue β€” in sterile containers (not formalin).
  • Send aerobic and anaerobic cultures held for 14 days for Cutibacterium acnes; consider fungal culture if the patient is immunocompromised.
  • Add a frozen section (more than 5 polymorphs per high-power field suggests infection) and permanent histology.
Step 12Glenoid bone-loss reconstruction
  • Match the strategy to the deficiency (see the table below): minor loss is reamed; moderate loss is eccentrically reamed, augmented or grafted; severe loss needs a structural graft (often staged) or conversion to a reverse.
  • Where bone stock allows, reimplanting a glenoid component outperforms simple component removal.
Step 13Humeral deficiency & stem selection
  • Assess cortical thickness on CT (normal greater than 4 mm; concerning if less than 2 mm), canal diameter, and whether defects are cavitary or cortical.
  • Cavitary defects: impact morselised allograft or autograft into the metaphysis and cement the stem over it.
  • Cortical defects or an osteotomy: apply a cortical strut allograft over the defect, fix with cerclage cables (Β± screws), and cement a long stem through it.
  • Use a long revision stem (150 to 200 mm) that bypasses defects and previous cement by 2 cortical diameters, with cortical contact at the isthmus for rotational stability; cemented fixation is preferred for immediate stability.
Step 14Conversion to a reverse β€” baseplate and humeral technique
  • Seat the baseplate medialized at the glenoid vault where the bone is best, in neutral or slight inferior tilt β€” never superior tilt, which causes scapular notching.
  • Fix with a minimum of 3 screws, preferring 4: a central screw into the vault (primary fixation), a superior screw into the coracoid base or scapular spine (strongest), an inferior screw into the scapular pillar, and anterior-posterior screws into the scapular body; use the longest safe lengths planned from CT and confirm with fluoroscopy; add wedge or step augments for deficiency.
  • On the humeral side use a long stem (150 to 200 mm), set 20 to 30 degrees of retroversion, and balance deltoid tension with humeral offset or lateralisation (too tight causes stiffness, too loose causes instability); choose a glenosphere of 36 to 42 mm.
Step 15Stability check, closure & immobilisation
  • Test stability: there should be no anterior translation in adduction and internal rotation (slight posterior translation is acceptable); adjust glenosphere size, offset and component position as needed.
  • Repair the subscapularis (or re-attach a lesser tuberosity osteotomy) and close the capsule and soft-tissue sleeve in layers.
  • Apply a sling β€” 4 to 6 weeks standard, 6 to 8 weeks after an osteotomy or extensive bone graft, with no active elbow flexion for 6 weeks to protect a humeral window or extended osteotomy.
Minor
Definition
Central erosion less than 10 mm
Reconstruction options
Ream to bleeding bone (Β± eccentric reaming to correct version); standard cemented glenoid component β€” outcomes approach a primary
Moderate
Definition
Central erosion 10 to 15 mm
Reconstruction options
Eccentric reaming (limited to less than 10 degrees of correction), or an augmented/wedge component, or a structural graft (fresh-frozen distal tibia or femoral head) fixed with 2 to 3 screws
Severe
Definition
Erosion greater than 15 mm or medial-wall breach
Reconstruction options
Structural allograft with staging (graft incorporation 4 to 6 months, then implant), or convert to a reverse with an augmented baseplate and long screws; hemiarthroplasty or resection arthroplasty as salvage
Glenoid bone-loss reconstruction by severity
SeverityDefinitionReconstruction options
MinorCentral erosion less than 10 mmReam to bleeding bone (Β± eccentric reaming to correct version); standard cemented glenoid component β€” outcomes approach a primary
ModerateCentral erosion 10 to 15 mmEccentric reaming (limited to less than 10 degrees of correction), or an augmented/wedge component, or a structural graft (fresh-frozen distal tibia or femoral head) fixed with 2 to 3 screws
SevereErosion greater than 15 mm or medial-wall breachStructural allograft with staging (graft incorporation 4 to 6 months, then implant), or convert to a reverse with an augmented baseplate and long screws; hemiarthroplasty or resection arthroplasty as salvage
Axillary nerve
Course and where it is at risk
Exits the quadrilateral space, lies on the deep surface of deltoid 5 to 7 cm below the acromion, crossing the inferior capsule at 6 o'clock; at risk during inferior capsular release and glenoid exposure
How to protect it
Identify it early during the inferior release, use a nerve stimulator in scarred tissue, limit the force and duration of inferior retraction
Musculocutaneous nerve
Course and where it is at risk
Enters the conjoint tendon 3 to 8 cm (mean 5 to 6 cm) distal to the coracoid; distorted by prior deltopectoral scarring
How to protect it
Identify the conjoint tendon early, limit medial retraction on it, avoid dissection greater than 8 cm distal to the coracoid
Radial nerve
Course and where it is at risk
Spirals in the posterior groove 10 to 14 cm proximal to the lateral epicondyle (15 to 18 cm distal to the head); at risk with an extended distal exposure or a long-stem revision
How to protect it
Limit distal humeral dissection, stay anterior when extending, identify the nerve before a humeral window, use fluoroscopy to confirm stem length
Brachial plexus and axillary vessels
Course and where it is at risk
Anterior and medial to the field, shielded by pectoralis minor and the conjoint tendon; scarring distorts the anatomy
How to protect it
Stay lateral to the conjoint tendon, avoid aggressive medial retraction, establish the landmarks early
Suprascapular nerve
Course and where it is at risk
Through the suprascapular notch then around the lateral scapular spine; at risk from superior baseplate screws during a reverse conversion
How to protect it
Direct superior screws anterosuperiorly toward the coracoid (not posterosuperiorly), confirm length with fluoroscopy, plan corridors on CT
The five danger structures β€” course, where they are at risk, and how to protect them
StructureCourse and where it is at riskHow to protect it
Axillary nerveExits the quadrilateral space, lies on the deep surface of deltoid 5 to 7 cm below the acromion, crossing the inferior capsule at 6 o'clock; at risk during inferior capsular release and glenoid exposureIdentify it early during the inferior release, use a nerve stimulator in scarred tissue, limit the force and duration of inferior retraction
Musculocutaneous nerveEnters the conjoint tendon 3 to 8 cm (mean 5 to 6 cm) distal to the coracoid; distorted by prior deltopectoral scarringIdentify the conjoint tendon early, limit medial retraction on it, avoid dissection greater than 8 cm distal to the coracoid
Radial nerveSpirals in the posterior groove 10 to 14 cm proximal to the lateral epicondyle (15 to 18 cm distal to the head); at risk with an extended distal exposure or a long-stem revisionLimit distal humeral dissection, stay anterior when extending, identify the nerve before a humeral window, use fluoroscopy to confirm stem length
Brachial plexus and axillary vesselsAnterior and medial to the field, shielded by pectoralis minor and the conjoint tendon; scarring distorts the anatomyStay lateral to the conjoint tendon, avoid aggressive medial retraction, establish the landmarks early
Suprascapular nerveThrough the suprascapular notch then around the lateral scapular spine; at risk from superior baseplate screws during a reverse conversionDirect superior screws anterosuperiorly toward the coracoid (not posterosuperiorly), confirm length with fluoroscopy, plan corridors on CT
Deltoid and axillary nerve β€” the non-negotiable

A reverse total shoulder arthroplasty cannot function without the deltoid. Deltoid dysfunction (2 to 5 percent in revision series) is catastrophic with no good salvage β€” trapezius transfer gives poor results. Prevent it: minimise deltoid retraction force and time (release periodically), never detach the deltoid origin, use the deltopectoral approach rather than a deltoid-splitting one, identify and protect the axillary nerve throughout, and repair any deltoid injury immediately.

Glenoid extraction dangers

During glenoid component removal watch for glenoid fracture (2 to 5 percent), excessive bone loss from aggressive cement removal, medial-wall perforation (axillary nerve and suprascapular vessels at risk), and fragment retention causing synovitis or wear. Work patiently with curved osteotomes angled toward the keel or pegs and preserve bone stock.

Prevent the intraoperative fracture

Fracture during component extraction occurs in 5 to 15 percent of revisions. Prevention is entirely technique: a complete 360-degree capsular release and atraumatic dislocation before any extraction attempt, steady axial (not eccentric) force on the slap hammer, hand reamers in poor bone, prophylactic cerclage if the cortex is under 2 mm, and a low threshold to osteotomise a well-fixed cemented stem rather than force it.

State 'CT mandatory' in the viva

Saying aloud that a preoperative CT with three-dimensional reconstruction is mandatory for revision planning β€” it shows the bone-loss pattern, guides grafting and plans screw trajectories β€” signals examiner-level thinking. Radiographs alone cannot classify the deficiency or plan the reconstruction.

Aftercare & Complications


Rehabilitation | Phase | Timing | Immobilisation | Rehabilitation focus |

|-------|--------|----------------|----------------------| | 1 | 0–6 weeks | Sling (6–8 weeks if osteotomy or extensive graft) | Passive range only, therapist-assisted; no active motion after a subscapularis repair or osteotomy | | 2 | 6–12 weeks | Sling for heavy tasks only | Active-assisted range once subscapularis healing is confirmed | | 3 | 12 weeks onward | None | Active range and progressive strengthening (deferred to 16–20 weeks after an osteotomy or major graft) | | Protected osteotomy | First 6 weeks | β€” | No active elbow flexion, to protect a humeral window or extended osteotomy | Recovery is longer than a primary: 6 to 12 months to plateau, with range-of-motion expectations lower. Set realistic patient expectations early. ### Major complications

Re-revision or failure (10 to 20 percent at 5 years, versus 2 to 4 percent for a primary; each revision worse)
Recognition
Recurrent mechanical pain, progressive radiolucent lines or migration, instability, raised inflammatory markers, dissatisfaction
Prevention
Appropriate indications (not pain alone with well-fixed components); full infection workup; liberal grafting of bone loss; stable fixation; convert to a reverse if cuff-deficient; realistic expectations
Management
Establish the cause (aspiration and CRP/ESR, radiographs and CT, exam and imaging, MRI or ultrasound), then re-revise β€” component revision for loosening, conversion to a reverse (commonest), two-stage for infection, resection for multiply failed
Infection (5 to 15 percent in revision versus 0.5 to 2 percent primary; Cutibacterium acnes in 25 to 30 percent, indolent)
Recognition
Acute: drainage, fever, pain, erythema within 6 weeks. Chronic: indolent pain and stiffness. Raised ESR/CRP (may be normal); aspiration WBC greater than 1,100 to 3,000 with PMN greater than 70 percent
Prevention
Preoperative aspiration if any suspicion; 5 to 6 intraoperative samples cultured 14 days; perioperative antibiotics; meticulous haemostasis; minimise operative time; drains removed within 48 hours; optimise nutrition, diabetes, smoking
Management
Acute (less than 3 weeks, stable implant): debridement, antibiotics and implant retention with polyethylene exchange β€” success 40 to 50 percent. Chronic or loose: two-stage revision with antibiotic cement spacer, 6 weeks IV antibiotics, reimplant at 3 to 6 months. Multiply failed: resection arthroplasty and suppressive antibiotics
Periprosthetic fracture (5 to 15 percent intraoperative, 2 to 5 percent postoperative; higher than primary)
Recognition
Intraoperative: audible crack or visible fracture during removal or dislocation. Postoperative: pain and deformity after a fall; radiographs confirm site and displacement
Prevention
Gentle extraction; full release before dislocation; hand reamers in poor bone; prophylactic cerclage if cortex under 2 mm; low threshold for a humeral window; bone-health optimisation and fall prevention
Management
Undisplaced intraoperative: cerclage and a long cemented stem bypassing 2 cortical diameters; displaced: open reduction and plating with cables and a long stem. Postoperative by site: proximal to stem (fix or revise), at the stem (revise to longer stem), distal to stem (plate); glenoid fracture often needs removal, grafting and staging
Nerve injury (3 to 8 percent versus 1 to 4 percent primary; axillary and musculocutaneous commonest; most are traction neuropraxias)
Recognition
Immediate motor or sensory deficit: axillary (deltoid paralysis, lateral shoulder numbness), musculocutaneous (elbow-flexion weakness, lateral forearm numbness), radial (wrist drop)
Prevention
Document a preoperative nerve exam; careful dissection in scarred tissue; identify nerves early; nerve stimulator if unclear; limit retraction force and duration; avoid dissection greater than 8 cm distal to the coracoid
Management
Most recover in 3 to 6 months (85 to 90 percent) β€” observe with splinting and physiotherapy; EMG at 3 to 4 weeks to confirm neuropraxia; explore only for suspected laceration or compressing hardware; tendon transfers if no recovery at 12 to 18 months
Instability or dislocation (5 to 15 percent versus 1 to 3 percent primary; higher with inadequate soft tissue, malposition, bone loss)
Recognition
Recurrent subluxation or dislocation; the shoulder 'comes out'; apprehension. Radiographs show subluxation; CT assesses component position; MRI or ultrasound the soft tissues
Prevention
Address the primary cause β€” repair or reconstruct the subscapularis, revise malposition, graft bone loss, convert to a reverse for cuff deficiency; correct humeral version (20 to 30 degrees retroversion); constrained designs for recurrence
Management
Closed reduction for an acute dislocation; CT and MRI or ultrasound to find the cause; then revise β€” soft-tissue repair, component revision for malposition, conversion to a reverse (commonest and most predictable), constrained liner as a last resort
Stiffness (20 to 40 percent significant versus 5 to 15 percent primary; expected to a degree β€” range-of-motion goals are lower)
Recognition
Limited passive and active range despite physiotherapy; pain with stretching; difficulty with activities of daily living
Prevention
Early passive range within repair protection; structured physiotherapy; optimise component position and complete the capsular release intraoperatively; excise heterotopic bone; realistic expectations
Management
Continue physiotherapy 6 to 12 months; radiographs and CT to rule out heterotopic bone or a mechanical block; aspirate to exclude infection; manipulation under anaesthesia at 4 to 6 months is controversial; revision only for a mechanical cause; many accept residual stiffness with good pain relief
Deltoid dysfunction (2 to 5 percent; catastrophic with no good salvage)
Recognition
Pseudoparalysis; positive deltoid lag sign; deltoid contour abnormality (atrophy or detachment); EMG distinguishes axillary-nerve palsy from detachment
Prevention
Careful deltoid retraction with periodic release; limit retraction time; identify and protect the axillary nerve; deltopectoral approach only; never detach the deltoid origin; repair any injury immediately
Management
Axillary neuropraxia: observe 6 to 12 months with physiotherapy and EMG. Detachment: immediate transosseous repair and 6 weeks protection (late repair poor beyond 6 months). No nerve recovery at 12 months: trapezius transfer (poor). Often the deficit is accepted with bracing
Major complications β€” recognition, prevention and management
ComplicationRecognitionPreventionManagement
Re-revision or failure (10 to 20 percent at 5 years, versus 2 to 4 percent for a primary; each revision worse)Recurrent mechanical pain, progressive radiolucent lines or migration, instability, raised inflammatory markers, dissatisfactionAppropriate indications (not pain alone with well-fixed components); full infection workup; liberal grafting of bone loss; stable fixation; convert to a reverse if cuff-deficient; realistic expectationsEstablish the cause (aspiration and CRP/ESR, radiographs and CT, exam and imaging, MRI or ultrasound), then re-revise β€” component revision for loosening, conversion to a reverse (commonest), two-stage for infection, resection for multiply failed
Infection (5 to 15 percent in revision versus 0.5 to 2 percent primary; Cutibacterium acnes in 25 to 30 percent, indolent)Acute: drainage, fever, pain, erythema within 6 weeks. Chronic: indolent pain and stiffness. Raised ESR/CRP (may be normal); aspiration WBC greater than 1,100 to 3,000 with PMN greater than 70 percentPreoperative aspiration if any suspicion; 5 to 6 intraoperative samples cultured 14 days; perioperative antibiotics; meticulous haemostasis; minimise operative time; drains removed within 48 hours; optimise nutrition, diabetes, smokingAcute (less than 3 weeks, stable implant): debridement, antibiotics and implant retention with polyethylene exchange β€” success 40 to 50 percent. Chronic or loose: two-stage revision with antibiotic cement spacer, 6 weeks IV antibiotics, reimplant at 3 to 6 months. Multiply failed: resection arthroplasty and suppressive antibiotics
Periprosthetic fracture (5 to 15 percent intraoperative, 2 to 5 percent postoperative; higher than primary)Intraoperative: audible crack or visible fracture during removal or dislocation. Postoperative: pain and deformity after a fall; radiographs confirm site and displacementGentle extraction; full release before dislocation; hand reamers in poor bone; prophylactic cerclage if cortex under 2 mm; low threshold for a humeral window; bone-health optimisation and fall preventionUndisplaced intraoperative: cerclage and a long cemented stem bypassing 2 cortical diameters; displaced: open reduction and plating with cables and a long stem. Postoperative by site: proximal to stem (fix or revise), at the stem (revise to longer stem), distal to stem (plate); glenoid fracture often needs removal, grafting and staging
Nerve injury (3 to 8 percent versus 1 to 4 percent primary; axillary and musculocutaneous commonest; most are traction neuropraxias)Immediate motor or sensory deficit: axillary (deltoid paralysis, lateral shoulder numbness), musculocutaneous (elbow-flexion weakness, lateral forearm numbness), radial (wrist drop)Document a preoperative nerve exam; careful dissection in scarred tissue; identify nerves early; nerve stimulator if unclear; limit retraction force and duration; avoid dissection greater than 8 cm distal to the coracoidMost recover in 3 to 6 months (85 to 90 percent) β€” observe with splinting and physiotherapy; EMG at 3 to 4 weeks to confirm neuropraxia; explore only for suspected laceration or compressing hardware; tendon transfers if no recovery at 12 to 18 months
Instability or dislocation (5 to 15 percent versus 1 to 3 percent primary; higher with inadequate soft tissue, malposition, bone loss)Recurrent subluxation or dislocation; the shoulder 'comes out'; apprehension. Radiographs show subluxation; CT assesses component position; MRI or ultrasound the soft tissuesAddress the primary cause β€” repair or reconstruct the subscapularis, revise malposition, graft bone loss, convert to a reverse for cuff deficiency; correct humeral version (20 to 30 degrees retroversion); constrained designs for recurrenceClosed reduction for an acute dislocation; CT and MRI or ultrasound to find the cause; then revise β€” soft-tissue repair, component revision for malposition, conversion to a reverse (commonest and most predictable), constrained liner as a last resort
Stiffness (20 to 40 percent significant versus 5 to 15 percent primary; expected to a degree β€” range-of-motion goals are lower)Limited passive and active range despite physiotherapy; pain with stretching; difficulty with activities of daily livingEarly passive range within repair protection; structured physiotherapy; optimise component position and complete the capsular release intraoperatively; excise heterotopic bone; realistic expectationsContinue physiotherapy 6 to 12 months; radiographs and CT to rule out heterotopic bone or a mechanical block; aspirate to exclude infection; manipulation under anaesthesia at 4 to 6 months is controversial; revision only for a mechanical cause; many accept residual stiffness with good pain relief
Deltoid dysfunction (2 to 5 percent; catastrophic with no good salvage)Pseudoparalysis; positive deltoid lag sign; deltoid contour abnormality (atrophy or detachment); EMG distinguishes axillary-nerve palsy from detachmentCareful deltoid retraction with periodic release; limit retraction time; identify and protect the axillary nerve; deltopectoral approach only; never detach the deltoid origin; repair any injury immediatelyAxillary neuropraxia: observe 6 to 12 months with physiotherapy and EMG. Detachment: immediate transosseous repair and 6 weeks protection (late repair poor beyond 6 months). No nerve recovery at 12 months: trapezius transfer (poor). Often the deficit is accepted with bracing

Viva & Exam Focus


Mnemonic

FAILUREFAILURE β€” the common revision indications

F
Fracture (periprosthetic)
Traumatic or osteoporotic, about 10 percent
A
Aseptic loosening
Commonest cause, about 40 percent; glenoid more than humerus
I
Instability and dislocation
About 20 percent; subscapularis failure, malposition, bone loss
L
Laxity and cuff failure
Rotator-cuff deficiency mandates a reverse
U
Unexplained pain
Well-fixed components; rule out infection, nerve, cervical spine
R
Redness and infection
5 to 15 percent in revision; Cutibacterium acnes indolent
E
Erosion and bone loss
Glenoid wear driving reconstruction strategy
Mnemonic

EXTRACTEXTRACT β€” safe component removal strategy

E
Evaluate fixation
Cemented versus uncemented β€” drives the plan
X
X-rays and CT
Plan the extraction approach from imaging
T
Tools ready
Slap hammer, osteotomes, burrs, saw, cables
R
Release adhesions
360-degree capsulectomy and atraumatic dislocation first
A
Avoid fracture
Gentle technique; osteotomise rather than force
C
Cement removal
Humeral window or extended osteotomy if well-fixed
T
Tissue samples
5 to 6 cultures held 14 days, after removal

Clinical Decision Scenarios

Practise clinical reasoning and management decisions out loud

Viva scenarioAdvanced
Clinical prompt

β€œA 68-year-old presents 5 years after a primary TSA with progressive pain and clicking. Radiographs show radiolucent lines around the glenoid component. How would you manage this patient?”

Viva scenarioAdvanced
Clinical prompt

β€œYou are revising a well-fixed cemented humeral stem. Describe your approach to safe component extraction.”

Viva scenarioAdvanced
Clinical prompt

β€œWhen would you convert a failed anatomic TSA to a reverse, and what are the key technical considerations?”

Exam day cheat sheet
Shoulder arthroplasty revision β€” exam-day essentials

Indications (FAILURE)

  • Aseptic loosening 40 percent β€” progressive lucency greater than 2 mm, migration, mechanical pain; glenoid more than humerus
  • Instability 20 percent β€” subscapularis failure, malposition, bone loss, cuff deficiency
  • Infection 5 to 15 percent β€” rule out in all cases; Cutibacterium acnes 25 to 30 percent, indolent
  • Periprosthetic fracture 10 percent β€” assess component stability and bone stock
  • Rotator-cuff failure β€” superior migration, pseudoparalysis; mandates a reverse
  • Unexplained pain β€” hardest; exclude infection, nerve, cervical spine, CRPS; poor outcomes if no mechanical cause

Mandatory workup

  • CT with 3D reconstruction is mandatory β€” radiographs cannot assess bone loss or plan grafting
  • Aspirate and hold cultures 14 days for Cutibacterium acnes; WBC greater than 1,100 concerning, greater than 3,000 likely septic, PMN greater than 70 percent
  • MRI or ultrasound for cuff integrity β€” cuff failure mandates a reverse
  • Obtain prior operative notes and implant stickers to plan extraction
  • Optimise bone health, smoking, diabetes (HbA1c less than 7 percent), nutrition

Exposure & nerves

  • Extended deltopectoral via the previous scar; protect the deltoid origin, never detach it
  • Axillary nerve: 5 to 7 cm below the acromion, at risk in inferior release
  • Musculocutaneous nerve: enters conjoint 3 to 8 cm distal to the coracoid; avoid dissection greater than 8 cm distal
  • 360-degree capsular release and atraumatic dislocation before any extraction
  • Nerve injury 3 to 8 percent in revision (versus 1 to 4 percent primary); most are traction neuropraxias

Component extraction

  • Uncemented: slap-hammer extractor, steady axial force; stop after 3 to 4 attempts
  • Well-fixed cemented: humeral window osteotomy (anterior, 8 to 12 cm, one-third circumference, 2 to 3 cables) or extended osteotomy (10 to 18 cm, 3 to 4 cables)
  • Glenoid: curved osteotomes toward the keel/pegs, preserve bone; beware fracture (2 to 5 percent)
  • 5 to 6 tissue samples after removal, cultured 14 days
  • Long stem 150 to 200 mm bypassing defects and cement by 2 cortical diameters

Conversion to reverse

  • 60 to 70 percent of revisions; rotator-cuff deficiency is the commonest indication
  • Baseplate medialized at the vault, neutral or slight inferior tilt, never superior tilt
  • Minimum 3 screws (prefer 4); superior screw into the coracoid base is strongest; fluoroscopy to confirm
  • Absolute contraindication: deltoid dysfunction β€” a reverse cannot function without the deltoid
  • Glenosphere 36 to 42 mm; humeral 20 to 30 degrees retroversion; balance deltoid tension

Complications & rehab

  • Re-revision 10 to 20 percent at 5 years; each revision worse
  • Infection 5 to 15 percent: acute DAIR, chronic two-stage
  • Periprosthetic fracture 5 to 15 percent intraoperative: prevent with release and gentle technique
  • Deltoid dysfunction 2 to 5 percent: catastrophic, no good salvage β€” prevention only
  • Sling 4 to 6 weeks (6 to 8 if osteotomy or graft); no active elbow flexion 6 weeks after a humeral window
  • Recovery 6 to 12 months; ROM lower than a primary

Background & Evidence


Epidemiology and global practice. Shoulder arthroplasty volumes are rising worldwide. The National Joint Registry (UK), American Joint Replacement Registry (USA) and Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry all report reverse designs as the dominant primary and revision construct, with instability and infection the leading early revision causes. Re-revision runs at 10 to 20 percent at five years (versus 2 to 4 percent for a primary), and outcomes fall with each successive revision β€” which is why preventing primary failure matters more than perfecting revision technique. Glenoid bone-loss classification (Antuna). The most widely used severity grading guides reconstruction:

I
Bone loss
Minimal β€” central erosion less than 10 mm
Typical management
Reimplant a standard glenoid component after reaming
II
Bone loss
Moderate β€” central erosion 10 to 15 mm
Typical management
Bone graft or an augmented component
III
Bone loss
Severe β€” greater than 15 mm or medial-wall compromise
Typical management
Structural graft (often staged) or convert to a reverse
Antuna classification of glenoid bone loss in revision
TypeBone lossTypical management
IMinimal β€” central erosion less than 10 mmReimplant a standard glenoid component after reaming
IIModerate β€” central erosion 10 to 15 mmBone graft or an augmented component
IIISevere β€” greater than 15 mm or medial-wall compromiseStructural graft (often staged) or convert to a reverse

Glenoid morphology (modified Walch, Bercik 2016 update). Used in primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis to guide version correction and bone-graft or augment planning, and it informs how much asymmetry a revision construct must accommodate:

A1
Morphology
Centered humeral head, minor central erosion
Significance
Concentric wear; standard management
A2
Morphology
Centered humeral head, major central (medialised) erosion
Significance
Symmetric medialisation to ream or graft
B1
Morphology
Posterior subluxation, posterior joint-line narrowing or sclerosis, no posterior erosion
Significance
Early posterior wear; address version
B2
Morphology
Posterior subluxation, biconcave glenoid (preserved paleoglenoid plus eroded neoglenoid)
Significance
Biconcave β€” often needs posterior graft or augment
B3
Morphology
Monoconcave posterior wear with at least 15 degrees retroversion or at least 70 percent posterior subluxation
Significance
Severe posterior wear
C
Morphology
Dysplastic glenoid, retroversion greater than 25 degrees (developmental, not erosive)
Significance
Developmental retroversion
D
Morphology
Anterior subluxation or anterior glenoid erosion (any anteversion)
Significance
Anterior wear pattern
Modified Walch classification of glenoid morphology
TypeMorphologySignificance
A1Centered humeral head, minor central erosionConcentric wear; standard management
A2Centered humeral head, major central (medialised) erosionSymmetric medialisation to ream or graft
B1Posterior subluxation, posterior joint-line narrowing or sclerosis, no posterior erosionEarly posterior wear; address version
B2Posterior subluxation, biconcave glenoid (preserved paleoglenoid plus eroded neoglenoid)Biconcave β€” often needs posterior graft or augment
B3Monoconcave posterior wear with at least 15 degrees retroversion or at least 70 percent posterior subluxationSevere posterior wear
CDysplastic glenoid, retroversion greater than 25 degrees (developmental, not erosive)Developmental retroversion
DAnterior subluxation or anterior glenoid erosion (any anteversion)Anterior wear pattern

The consistent evidence message. A reverse reliably salvages the failed anatomic arthroplasty in the cuff-deficient or bone-deficient shoulder (Patel), though roughly one in six outcomes remain unsatisfactory and revision results are inferior to a primary. Where glenoid bone stock allows, reimplanting a glenoid or baseplate outperforms simple component removal β€” the basis for liberal bone grafting and augmented or staged reconstruction (Antuna). When a reverse itself fails, instability rather than glenoid loosening dominates, and restoring humeral length and lateralisation is the key technical lever (Boileau). And because Cutibacterium acnes is indolent and mimics aseptic loosening, multiple deep cultures held for at least 14 days are mandatory in every revision, especially in younger men (Singh).

References


Evidence

Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for failed shoulder arthroplasty

Level IV
Patel DN, Young B, Onyekwelu I, Zuckerman JD, Kwon YW β€’ Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery (2012)
Key Findings:
  • 31 patients (mean age 68.7) revised to a reverse for failed shoulder arthroplasty; 28 followed for a mean 40.7 months
  • Active forward elevation improved from 44 degrees preoperatively to 108 degrees postoperatively (P less than 0.001)
  • Significant gains in ASES (24.0 to 66.2), UCLA, SST and VAS pain; results good or excellent in 67.9 percent and unsatisfactory in 17.8 percent
Clinical implication: Conversion to a reverse is a reliable salvage for the failed arthroplasty, but roughly 1 in 6 outcomes remain unsatisfactory β€” counsel that revision results are inferior to a primary.
Verify on PubMed (PMID 22361717)
Evidence

Glenoid revision surgery after total shoulder arthroplasty

Level IV
Antuna SA, Sperling JW, Cofield RH, Rowland CM β€’ Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery (2001)
Key Findings:
  • 48 shoulders undergoing glenoid component revision; loosening in 29, implant failure in 14, malposition or wear with instability in 5
  • Satisfactory pain relief in 86 percent when a new glenoid component was implanted versus 66 percent after component removal with bone grafting alone
  • Patients without a glenoid component were significantly less satisfied; re-revision was required in 12 of 48 shoulders
Clinical implication: Where bone stock allows, reimplanting a glenoid or baseplate outperforms component removal alone β€” the basis for liberal bone grafting and augmented or staged reconstruction.
Verify on PubMed (PMID 11408901)
Evidence

Revision surgery of reverse shoulder arthroplasty

Level IV
Boileau P, Melis B, Duperron D, Moineau G, Rumian AP, Han Y β€’ Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery (2013)
Key Findings:
  • 37 reverse arthroplasties revised; commonest failure modes were prosthetic instability (48 percent), humeral loosening, derotation or fracture (21 percent) and infection (19 percent)
  • Glenoid loosening required reoperation in only 2 patients (3 percent); underestimated humeral shortening and excessive medialisation drove recurrent instability
  • 86 percent retained the reverse construct; mean Constant score rose from 19 to 47 (P less than 0.001)
Clinical implication: When a reverse itself fails, instability β€” not glenoid loosening β€” dominates; restoring humeral length and lateralisation is the key technical lever, and full-length humeral radiographs should be obtained before revision.
Verify on PubMed (PMID 23706884)
Evidence

Periprosthetic infections after total shoulder arthroplasty: a 33-year perspective

Level III
Singh JA, Sperling JW, Schleck C, Harmsen WS, Cofield RH β€’ Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery (2012)
Key Findings:
  • 2,588 primary total shoulder arthroplasties followed over 33 years; 32 confirmed deep periprosthetic infections
  • 5-, 10- and 20-year infection-free survival were 99.3 percent, 98.5 percent and 97.2 percent β€” but Cutibacterium (Propionibacterium) acnes became nearly as common as Staphylococcus in recent years
  • Male sex (HR 2.67) and younger age were independent risk factors for deep infection
Clinical implication: Baseline infection risk is low, but Cutibacterium acnes is indolent and mimics aseptic loosening β€” mandating multiple deep cultures held for at least 14 days in every revision, especially in younger male patients.
Verify on PubMed (PMID 22516570)

Evidence

Outcomes after shoulder replacement: comparison between reverse and anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty

Level III
Kiet TK, Feeley BT, Naimark M, Gajiu T, Hall SL, Chung TT, Ma CB β€’ Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery (2015)
Key Findings:
  • Prospective case-control of 47 anatomic versus 53 reverse arthroplasties at minimum 2-year follow-up
  • Similar major-complication rates (TSA 15 percent versus RTSA 13 percent) and revision rates (TSA 11 percent versus RTSA 9 percent); ASES and VAS comparable
  • Anatomic TSA retained greater external rotation (53 versus 38 degrees, P equal to 0.001) β€” the trade-off for the cuff-independent stability of reverse designs
Clinical implication: A reverse delivers comparable pain relief and complication rates but at the cost of external rotation β€” relevant when counselling cuff-deficient revision patients on expected functional limits.
Verify on PubMed (PMID 25213827)
### Further reading 1. Bonnevialle N, Melis B, Neyton L, et al. Aseptic glenoid loosening or failure in total shoulder arthroplasty: revision with glenoid reimplantation. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;22(6):745-751. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2012.07.011 2. Holschen M, Siemes MK, Witt KA, et al. Two-stage revision shoulder arthroplasty for periprosthetic joint infection: tackling the challenges. Int Orthop. 2020;44(2):295-304. doi:10.1007/s00264-019-04461-x 3. Zumstein MA, Pinedo M, Old J, Boileau P. Problems, complications, reoperations, and revisions in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011;20(1):146-157. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2010.08.001 4. Wagner ER, Houdek MT, Schleck C, et al. Increasing rates of bone grafting in revision shoulder arthroplasty: an analysis of 4,657 cases. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2018;100(24):e162. doi:10.2106/JBJS.18.00356 5. Cofield RH, Edgerton BC. Total shoulder arthroplasty: complications and revision surgery. Instr Course Lect. 1990;39:449-462. PMID: 2186138 6. Bercik MJ, Kruse K, Yalizis M, et al. A modification to the Walch classification of the glenoid in primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis using three-dimensional imaging. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2016;25(10):1601-1606. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2016.03.010 7. National and international arthroplasty registries β€” National Joint Registry (NJR, UK), American Joint Replacement Registry (AJRR, USA) and Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR): rising shoulder arthroplasty volumes, with reverse designs now the dominant primary and revision construct and instability and infection the leading early revision causes worldwide.

Editorially reviewed β€” transparent references and correction processPublished by OrthoVellum Medical Education TeamEditorial boardMethodologyReview policy
Educational disclosure

Educational content is reviewed for source visibility, editorial coherence, and correction readiness.

No individual clinician credential is claimed unless a named person is shown.

Verify before clinical use; this is not medical advice or a substitute for local guidance.

Procedure console
25 minutes
Read
0
Sections
advanced
Level
Peer-reviewed Β· 2026-06-20
Procedure info
Level
advanced
Read time
25 minutes
Updated
2026-06-20
SURGICAL APPROACHES USED
Deltopectoral Approach to Shoulder
Browse all procedures