IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0330975.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is there a difference in thresholds for revision between shoulder arthroplasty types? A National Joint Registry Study

Author

Listed:
  • Olivia O’Malley
  • Andrew Davies
  • Amar Rangan
  • Sanjeeve Sabharwal
  • Peter Reilly

Abstract

Introduction: Shoulder arthroplasty procedures have increased significantly, with reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) becoming more common. While RSA revision rates are reported as low, these figures may not accurately reflect implant success. Factors such as older patient demographics and surgeon reluctance to perform complex revisions may contribute to lower revision rates. This perception may encourage broader RSA use in younger patients, potentially increasing long-term revision burdens. This study examines whether revision thresholds differ between shoulder arthroplasty types to determine if low revision rates reported signify true implant success. Methods: All shoulder arthroplasties from the 1st April 2012 to the 31st March 2022 were requested from the National Joint Registry (NJR). Mean postoperative Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS) was calculated for RSA, total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA), and hemiarthroplasty (HA). Revision rates were analysed between implants for patients with a mean postoperative OSS of

Suggested Citation

  • Olivia O’Malley & Andrew Davies & Amar Rangan & Sanjeeve Sabharwal & Peter Reilly, 2025. "Is there a difference in thresholds for revision between shoulder arthroplasty types? A National Joint Registry Study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 20(8), pages 1-11, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0330975
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0330975
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0330975
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0330975&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0330975?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0330975. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.