Management of the floating shoulder: Does the glenopolar angle influence outcomes? A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Currently there is no consensus on the optimal treatment of the "floating shoulder". We aim to perform a systematic review to determine outcomes in the management of this condition. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Studies related to the management of the "floating shoulder" were identified by a review of medline using platform Pubmed/Ovid, Scopus and Cochrane library data bases. Studies were included if they: (1) are published in the English language and (2) reported outcomes of at least 2 or more cases of floating shoulder injuries using at least one objective shoulder scoring system. Exclusion criteria were (1) non-human and biomechanical studies and (2) studies with a clear selection bias. Three treatment groups were identified. Group 1-non-operative, Group 2-fixation of clavicle only, and Group 3-fixation of clavicle and scapula neck. RESULTS: Thirteen studies gave a population of 244 subjects of which 104 had non-operative treatment, 98 had internal fixation of the clavicle only and 42 had fixation of both the clavicle and the scapula. There were no differences in the outcome scores among the 3 treatment arms as the patients with undisplaced or minimally displaced fractures had conservative treatment and those with displaced fractures were surgically stabilised. There was a positive correlation between the final glenopolar angle and the Constant score. CONCLUSIONS: The review was unable to show a difference in outcomes among the 3 treatment groups. Any treatment modality that restores the glenopolar angle is likely to result in a good outcome. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic level IV.

The Porcellini test: a novel test for accurate diagnosis of posterior labral tears of the shoulder: comparative analysis with the established tests.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: Although the posterior labral tears of the shoulder are known for their disabling clinical course, especially in overhead athletes, no clinical test used in isolation can diagnose it accurately in the preoperative period. We wanted to: (1) introduce "Porcellini test" with its radiological verification furnishing the anatomical basis of its mechanism; (2) determine its accuracy; and (3) compare its accuracy with that of the other established tests for diagnosing posterior labral tears of the shoulder. METHODS: To determine the anatomical basis, we initially performed radiological verification of our test. Then, we evaluated its accuracy in a retrospective case-controlled study on 310 consecutive patients who underwent shoulder arthroscopic procedures at our hospital between January 2013 and December 2013. All patients were examined preoperatively for Porcellini test, and the presence of posterior labral tear was confirmed on arthroscopy. Later, in a cohort study on 91 consecutive patients who underwent shoulder arthroscopic procedures, we compared its accuracy with O'Brien's test, the Kim test, the Jerk test, and the Load and Shift test. The accuracy was interpreted in terms of sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values. RESULTS: The radiological verification conferred the anatomical basis for the mechanism of the Porcellini test. This new test showed high accuracy for posterior labral tears with sensitivity of 100 %, specificity of 99.3 %, the positive and negative predictive values of 92.6 and 100 %, respectively. Also, it had superior accuracy results than every other test. The interexaminer reliability for all test results was found to be >0.80. CONCLUSIONS: We propose "Porcellini test" as a simple, accurate, reproducible, and reliable test for the preoperative diagnosis of posterior labral tears of shoulder.