Outcomes following manufacturer-mismatched implants in primary and revision shoulder arthroplasty

Abstract

In reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RSA), surgeons predominantly use components from the same manufacturer. In certain situations, it may be advantageous to “mismatch” components. There is a lack of literature investigating outcomes following manufacturer-mismatched implants. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the outcomes following RSA with manufacturer-mismatched implants. All primary or revision RSAs between 2013 to 2021 with manufacturer-mismatched glenoid and humeral components was performed. Data collected included demographic variables, postoperative function, and complications. Totally 85 patients underwent RSA with manufacturer-mismatched implants. Sixty-three were primary cases (74%) and 22 (26%) were revision cases. The mean age was 70.2 ± 8.8, and 20 (24%) were male. The mean follow-up was 47.8 (range: 24–114 months). In primary cases the mean ASES score was 79.1 ± 21.3, SANE score of 75 ± 25.4, and VAS pain score of 1.8 ± 2.5. For revisions, the mean ASES score was 61.2 ± 25.9, SANE score of 50 ± 31.9, and VAS pain score of 3.2 ± 2.9. These are comparable to historical controls. Fourteen (16.4%) patients sustained a postoperative complication, six (7.1%) underwent a reoperation. Our results demonstrate that manufacturer-mismatching has comparable postoperative function, complications, and reoperation rates to the reported literature.

Level of evidence: III

Keywords

Revision arthroplasty reverse shoulder arthroplasty mismatch osteoarthritis primary arthroplasty

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Eichinger

Greenhouse

Rao

, et al. Racial and sex disparities in utilization rates for shoulder arthroplasty in the United States disparities in shoulder arthroplasty. J Orthop 2019; 16: 195–200.

Testa

Glass

Ames

, et al. Indication matters: effect of indication on clinical outcome following reverse total shoulder arthroplasty—a multicenter study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2024; 33: 1235–1242.

Mizuno

Denard

Raiss

, et al. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis in patients with a biconcave glenoid. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2013; 95: 1297–1304.

Levy

Berglund

Vakharia

, et al. Midterm results of anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty with a third-generation implant. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2019; 28: 698–705.

Welch

Bethell

Meyer

, et al. Outcomes and complications of revision reverse shoulder arthroplasty after failed primary anatomic shoulder arthroplasty or hemiarthroplasty: a systematic review. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2024; 33: 2306–2313.

Wieser

Borbas

, et al. Conversion of stemmed hemi- or total to reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: advantages of a modular stem design. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2015; 473: 651–660.

Crosby

Wright

, et al. Conversion to reverse total shoulder arthroplasty the role of a convertible-platform stem. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2017; 99: 736–742.

Smith

Collin

Elsenbsy

, et al. Manufacturer mismatch does not affect patient outcomes in primary reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2025; 34: 1613–1620.

Kirsch

Patel

Singh

, et al. Early clinical and radiographic outcomes of an augmented baseplate in reverse shoulder arthroplasty for glenohumeral arthritis with glenoid deformity. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2021; 30: S123–S130.

10.

Peters

van Steenbergen

Bulstra

, et al. Nationwide review of mixed and non-mixed components from different manufacturers in total hip arthroplasty: a Dutch arthroplasty register study. Acta Orthop 2016; 87: 356–362.

11.

Tucker

Pickford

Newell

, et al. Mixing of components from different manufacturers in total hip arthroplasty: prevalence and comparative outcomes. Acta Orthop 2015; 86: 671–677.

12.

Morlock

Nassutt

Janssen

, et al. Mismatched wear couple zirconium oxide and aluminum oxide in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2001; 16: 1071–1074.

13.

Stadecker

Givens

Schmidt

II , et al. Mismatched implants yield comparable outcomes in revision shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2025; 34: S22–S27.

14.

Delgado

Lambert

Boutris

, et al. Validation of digital visual analog scale pain scoring with a traditional paper-based visual analog scale in adults. J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev 2018; 2: e088.

15.

Richards

Bigliani

, et al. A standardized method for the assessment of shoulder function. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 1994; 3: 347–352.

16.

Hawkins

Boes

Thigpen

, et al. Measure what matters: single assessment numeric evaluation (SANE) score as the critical measure for shoulder outcomes. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2024; 33: 1397–1403.

17.

Burton

Adam

Holland

, et al. A review of custom implants for glenoid bone deficiency in reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Orthop 2023; 36: 65–71.

18.

Mallon

Khun

. Intraoperative modification of implants. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2023; 32: 1347.

19.

Kennedy

Klifto

Ledbetter

, et al. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty clinical and patient-reported outcomes and complications stratified by preoperative diagnosis: a systematic review. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2021; 30: 929–941.

20.

Abdelfattah

Otto

Simon

, et al. Classification of instability after reverse shoulder arthroplasty guides surgical management and outcomes. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2018; 27: e107–e118.

21.

Favard

Levigne

Nerot

, et al.

Reverse prostheses in arthropathies with cuff tear—are survivorship and function maintained over time?

Clin Orthop Relat Res 2011; 469: 2469–2475.

22.

Gerber

Canonica

Catanzaro

, et al. Longitudinal observational study of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for irreparable rotator cuff dysfunction: results after 15 years. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2018; 27: 831–838.

23.

Bacle

Nové-Josserand

Garaud

, et al. Long-term outcomes of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg 2017; 99: 454–461.

24.

Cuff

Clark

Pupello

, et al. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty for the treatment of rotator cuff deficiency—a concise follow-up, at a minimum of 10 years, of previous reports. J Bone Joint Surg 2017; 99: 1895–1899.

25.

Craven

Davies

Sabharwal

, et al. Outcomes following revision of a failed primary reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Bone Joint J 2024; 106: 1293–1300.

26.

Gutiérrez

Keller

Levy

, et al. Hierarchy of stability factors in reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2008; 466: 670–676.

27.

Lohre

Swanson

Mahendraraj

, et al. Predictors of dislocations after reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a study by the ASES complications of RSA multicenter research group. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2024; 33: 73–81.