Shoulder arthroplasty in the management of native shoulder joint infections has a high complication rate and poor functional outcome – a systematic review

Robert W. Jordan, Imran Ahmed, Peter D’Alessandro, Jarret M. Woodmass, Peter B. MacDonald, Shahbaz S. Malik

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

Abstract

Background: Shoulder arthroplasty is a treatment option of the sequelae of native shoulder joint infections. However, the functional outcomes and re-infection rates are unknown. The aim of this review was to analyse the outcome of shoulder arthroplasty in patients with native shoulder infections. Methods: A review of the online databases MEDLINE and Embase was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. The review was registered prospectively in the PROSPERO database. Studies reporting either primary or secondary infections of native shoulder joints treated with any form of arthroplasty were included and appraised using the methodological index for non-randomised studies (MINORS) tool. Results: Fourteen studies were eligible for inclusion. Mean age ranged from 56 to 72 years and the mean follow-up from 20.5 months to 8.2 years. Primary shoulder infections were present in 50 patients and secondary infections in 86. 76 patients underwent a two stage: 46 patients a single-stage procedure whilst 14 refused second-stage surgery. Mean post-operative Constant score ranged from 38 to 56.2. The overall reported re-infection rate was 2.3% and complication rate was 26%. Conclusion: Shoulder arthroplasty in the management of either primary or secondary native shoulder infections has a high complication rate and low functional outcome but low re-infection rates at short-term follow-up.

Original languageEnglish
Number of pages14
JournalShoulder and Elbow
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 22 Feb 2024

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Shoulder arthroplasty in the management of native shoulder joint infections has a high complication rate and poor functional outcome – a systematic review'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this