Thirty and Ninety-Day Reoperation Rates After Shoulder Arthroplasty

Background: The purpose of the present study was to assess thirty and ninety-day reoperation rates after shoulder arthroplasty from 2000 to 2010.

Methods: Our institution’s joint registry was queried to identify shoulder arthroplasties performed from January 2000 to December 2010. Data regarding patient demographics and the type of procedure were reviewed. Reoperations within thirty and ninety days after the index procedure were analyzed. During the eleven-year study period, 2305 primary arthroplasties (502 hemiarthroplasties, 1440 anatomic total shoulder arthroplasties, and 363 reverse total shoulder arthroplasties) and 518 revision arthroplasties (twenty-one hemiarthroplasties, 356 anatomic total arthroplasties, and 141 reverse arthroplasties) were performed. Fifty-four percent of patients were female; mean age was sixty-eight years (range, eighteen to ninety-seven years) and body mass index was 30.3 kg/m2 (range, 14.7 to 65.9 kg/m2).

Results: Reoperation was required within thirty days after fourteen primary arthroplasties (0.6%) and eight revision arthroplasties (1.5%); it was required within ninety days after thirty-two primary arthroplasties (1.4%) and thirteen revision arthroplasties (2.5%). The most frequent causes for reoperation after primary and revision arthroplasty were instability (n = 14 and 6) and infection (n = 13 and 3). The mean number of additional procedures required was 1.3 (range, one to four) for primary arthroplasties and 1.8 (range, one to three) for revision arthroplasties; 20% of patients undergoing reoperation required two or more additional procedures. Reoperations led to readmission in 82% of cases.

Conclusions: Short-term reoperation after shoulder arthroplasty was infrequent. Wound complications and shoulder instability were the most frequent causes for reoperation. Reoperation was twice as frequent after revision surgery as after primary shoulder arthroplasty.

Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Peer Review This article was reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief and one Deputy Editor, and it underwent blinded review by two or more outside experts. The Deputy Editor reviewed each revision of the article, and it underwent a final review by the Editor-in-Chief prior to publication. Final corrections and clarifications occurred during one or more exchanges between the author(s) and copyeditors.