Reconstruction by allograft-prosthetic composite reverse shoulder arthroplasty after proximal humerus tumor resection: Clinical and radiographic assessment at a minimum 2years' follow-up.

INTRODUCTION: Reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) is an option to conserve limb function after resection of proximal humerus malignancy. An allograft-composite RSA is an alternative to a tumor prosthesis, and can restore proximal humeral bone stock. The aim of the present study was to assess medium-term radiographic and clinical results for such composite implants. METHODS: Patients with malignant proximal humerus tumor treated by resection and reconstruction by composite RSA were retrospectively analyzed at a minimum 24months' follow-up. Clinical assessment used Constant score, Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV) and ADLER score. Standard radiographic work-up assessed allograft absorption and screened for implant loosening. RESULTS: Eleven patients were included, with a mean age of 51years (range: 19-87years) and mean 30months' follow-up (range: 24-84months). Mean tumor resection was 10cm (range: 6-17cm). Etiologies comprised chondrosarcoma (n=6), osteosarcoma (n=2), B-cell lymphoma (n=1) and single metastasis (n=2). Bony increased-offset allograft was associated to humerus reconstruction in 8 cases, and latissimus dorsi tendon transfer in 5 cases. Mean Constant score was 49 points, SSV 52%, and ADLER score 20 points. Increased glenoid implant offset associated to tendon transfer significantly improved anterior elevation and external rotation. Radiographic allograft consolidation to the native humerus was acquired in 73% of cases, while osteolysis in the epiphyseal-metaphyseal zone was found in 64%. There were no cases of humeral implant loosening. Glenoid allograft absorption was systematic (8/8 cases), without inducing loosening of the implant baseplate. CONCLUSION: Composite reverse shoulder arthroplasty is functionally effective after massive resection. However, allograft absorption is a drawback, casting doubt on continued use on the glenoid side. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Impact of time to surgery in upper femoral fracture in orthogeriatrics.

INTRODUCTION: Treatment of hip fracture in the elderly is a major public health issue. Orthogeriatric departments have been developed for these patients at high risk of complications. Time to surgery seems to be an important factor in the care pathway, but remains controversial. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the impact of less than 24 hours' time to surgery on 1-year morbidity and mortality in patients managed in our orthogeriatric department. HYPOTHESIS: The study hypothesis was that<24 hours' time to surgery decreases mortality in elderly patients with upper femoral fracture. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort study from September 2015 to July 2016 included patients aged 75 years and older, eligible for orthogeriatric management of upper femoral fracture. Patients with comorbidities were prioritized for admission and for access to the operating room. Time to surgery was defined as time between the arrival in A&E and transfer to the operating room. The primary endpoint was 1-year survival. Comorbidities were assessed on Charlson score. ROC curve analysis determined the optimal cut-off for time to surgery. Variables significantly associated with mortality were included in a Cox regression model to estimate the adjusted effect of time to surgery on mortality. RESULTS: One hundred and eight patients were included; mean age, 87±6.2 years; 26 male (24.1%), 82 female (75.9%). One-year mortality was 24.1% (26/108). Mean time to surgery was 14.1±30.9hours. ROC curve analysis showed a rise in mortality after a cut-off of 22hours 37minutes (p<0.0001). CONCLUSION: Within a dedicated orthogeriatric department, time to surgery is a significant factor in the management of hip fractures in the elderly. Patients should be prioritized for theater and ideally receive "early" surgery within 24hours of admission to A&E. The potential benefit of "ultra-early" surgery (time to surgery<6hours) requires robust assessment. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV, Retrospective cohort study.