Revision Risk Following Primary Anatomic and Reverse TSA with an Exactech Equinoxe Compared with Other Devices

Background: In 2024, Exactech issued a voluntary recall of Equinoxe devices after finding that some devices had been packaged in bags that were non-conforming because a secondary oxygen barrier layer of ethylene vinyl alcohol was missing. We sought to evaluate the revision risk following shoulder arthroplasty using an Exactech Equinoxe device compared with other eligible devices. Methods: We conducted a cohort study using data from a U.S. health-care system’s shoulder arthroplasty registry. The study included 13,901 adult patients who had undergone primary elective anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (ATSA), elective reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA), or RTSA for fracture (2005 to 2023). The mean age for the ATSA cohort (N = 8,707) was 68 years, 53.3% were male, and 84.7% were White. Corresponding values for the elective RTSA cohort (N = 4,374) were 74 years, 41.2% male, and 79.9% White, and those for the RTSA for fracture cohort (N = 820) were 73 years, 16.3% male, and 78.4% White. Multivariable Cox regression with covariate adjustment was used to evaluate all-cause revision risk for Equinoxe devices compared with other devices. Results: In adjusted analyses, a higher revision risk was observed for ATSAs with Equinoxe versus other devices (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.33 to 2.62). The higher revision risk was also observed in a subanalysis restricted to ATSAs with Equinoxe devices packaged in non-conforming bags (HR = 1.91, 95% CI = 1.34 to 2.72). No differences were observed in elective RTSAs (HR = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.33 to 1.49) or RTSAs for fracture (HR = 2.30, 95% CI = 0.84 to 6.28) with Equinoxe compared with other devices. Conclusions: We observed a higher revision risk with the use of Equinoxe devices in ATSA, but no difference for Equinoxe devices in elective RTSA compared with other devices. While all Equinoxe devices packaged in non-conforming bags were recalled worldwide in 2024, clinicians should be mindful of these findings when a patient had previously received an Equinoxe ATSA device. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery
Published
2026-09-15
DOI
https://doi.org/10.2106/jbjs.25.01594
Primary Topic
Shoulder Injury and Treatment
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
article

Revision Risk Following Primary Anatomic and Reverse TSA with an Exactech Equinoxe Compared with Other Devices

Heather A. Prentice, Christopher Roche, Jessica DeGrasse, Richard N. Chang et al.
Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery
Shoulder Injury and Treatment
article

Revision Risk Following Primary Anatomic and Reverse TSA with an Exactech Equinoxe Compared with Other Devices

Heather A. Prentice, Christopher Roche, Jessica DeGrasse, Richard N. Chang, Josie Elwell, Elizabeth W. Paxton, Ronald A. Navarro, Edward H. Yian, Anshuman Singh, David Y. Ding, Danny P. Chan
article en

Abstract

Background: In 2024, Exactech issued a voluntary recall of Equinoxe devices after finding that some devices had been packaged in bags that were non-conforming because a secondary oxygen barrier layer of ethylene vinyl alcohol was missing. We sought to evaluate the revision risk following shoulder arthroplasty using an Exactech Equinoxe device compared with other eligible devices. Methods: We conducted a cohort study using data from a U.S. health-care system’s shoulder arthroplasty registry. The study included 13,901 adult patients who had undergone primary elective anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (ATSA), elective reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA), or RTSA for fracture (2005 to 2023). The mean age for the ATSA cohort (N = 8,707) was 68 years, 53.3% were male, and 84.7% were White. Corresponding values for the elective RTSA cohort (N = 4,374) were 74 years, 41.2% male, and 79.9% White, and those for the RTSA for fracture cohort (N = 820) were 73 years, 16.3% male, and 78.4% White. Multivariable Cox regression with covariate adjustment was used to evaluate all-cause revision risk for Equinoxe devices compared with other devices. Results: In adjusted analyses, a higher revision risk was observed for ATSAs with Equinoxe versus other devices (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.33 to 2.62). The higher revision risk was also observed in a subanalysis restricted to ATSAs with Equinoxe devices packaged in non-conforming bags (HR = 1.91, 95% CI = 1.34 to 2.72). No differences were observed in elective RTSAs (HR = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.33 to 1.49) or RTSAs for fracture (HR = 2.30, 95% CI = 0.84 to 6.28) with Equinoxe compared with other devices. Conclusions: We observed a higher revision risk with the use of Equinoxe devices in ATSA, but no difference for Equinoxe devices in elective RTSA compared with other devices. While all Equinoxe devices packaged in non-conforming bags were recalled worldwide in 2024, clinicians should be mindful of these findings when a patient had previously received an Equinoxe ATSA device. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery
University of Florida (US), Colorado Permanente Medical Group (US), Kaiser Permanente San Leandro Medical Center (US), The Medical Device (United Kingdom) (GB)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 8%
Shoulder Injury and Treatment
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.