Acute, Traumatic Rotator Cuff Tears Have Smaller Critical Shoulder Angles Than Degenerative Tears.

PURPOSE: To determine whether the critical shoulder angle (CSA) in acute, traumatic rotator cuff tears (RCTs) is consistent with the previously described CSA in chronic degenerative RCTs. METHODS: We performed a multicenter retrospective analysis of 134 patients presenting to 5 surgeons fellowship trained in shoulder and elbow or sports. Preoperative imaging was used to measure the CSA and tear characteristics. Patients were included if they had acute, traumatic full-thickness RCTs documented on advanced imaging and had preoperative Grashey radiographs. Patients were excluded if they had any history of shoulder pain, injury, surgery, or treatment prior to the current episode; were overhead athletes; or had fatty infiltration greater than Goutallier grade 1 on imaging. RESULTS: The mean CSA was 33.5° (standard deviation, 4.1°), and 60% of tears had a CSA of less than 35°, much below the mean of 38.0° and the threshold of greater than 35° in degenerative RCTs. The mean age was 58 years, and 70% of patients were men. Overall, 60% of tears involved the subscapularis, 49% of tears occurred in patients aged 60 years or older, and 18% of patients sustained a dislocation. Older age (ß = 0.316, P = .003) and male sex (ß = 5.532, P = .025) were predictive of tear size, and older age (ß = 0.229, P = .011) and biceps avulsion (ß = 8.822, P = .012) were predictive of tear retraction. CONCLUSIONS: Acute, traumatic RCTs have CSAs that are 5° smaller than those of degenerative tears, and the majority (60%) have CSAs that are below the threshold consistent with degenerative RCTs. The majority of traumatic tears (60%) involve the subscapularis. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The study findings suggest that a traumatic tear is not simply the acute failure of a degenerative tendon and that it represents a distinct pathologic entity. These findings support current practice of treating traumatic RCTs differently than degenerative RCTs.

Surgical management of periprosthetic shoulder infections.

BACKGROUND: The treatment of periprosthetic joint infection is a difficult challenge in shoulder arthroplasty. This study investigated 1-stage modular component exchange vs. 1-stage complete removal and reimplantation (CRR) vs. 2-stage revision arthroplasty for periprosthetic joint infection. METHODS: Between January 1, 2004, and December 31, 2012, 79 patients received a component exchange (n = 15), CRR (n = 45), or a 2-stage (n = 19) revision for infection. A binary logistic regression analysis was performed to determine factors presenting the greatest risk of reinfection. Complications and functional outcomes were also evaluated. RESULTS: Overall, 4 of 15 (27%) component exchanges, 2 of 45 (4%) CRRs, and 4 of 19 (21%) 2-stage procedures required a reoperation for infection with a minimum of 1 year of follow-up. The difference between the CRR group and exchange group was significant (P = .030); however, the difference between the CRR group and 2-stage group did not reach statistical significance (P = .059). No preoperative and intraoperative selection bias between the groups was found. Binary logistic regression predicted that reinfection was highest in patients whose cultures grew Staphylococcus aureus (P = .004) or coagulase-negative Staphylococcus species (P = .041) or those treated with a component exchange (P = .015). The difference between groups for noninfection-related complications was not significant (P = .703). All procedures provided improved functional outcomes and pain relief. CONCLUSION: Patients with infection caused by Staphylococcus aureus or coagulase-negative Staphylococcus species may require additional operations to treat the infection. Although effective in some cases, component exchange presents an increased risk for reinfection. A 1-stage CRR procedure had similar reinfection rates as a 2-stage procedure in our patient population.

Biomechanics of Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty: Current Concepts.

The evolution of reverse shoulder arthroplasty has provided surgeons with new solutions for many complex shoulder problems. A primary goal of orthopaedics is the restoration or re-creation of functional anatomy to reduce pain and improve function, which can be accomplished by either repairing injured structures or replacing them as anatomically as possible. If reconstructible tissue is lacking or not available, which is seen in patients who have complex shoulder conditions such as an irreparable rotator cuff-deficient shoulder, cuff tear arthropathy, or severe glenoid bone loss, substantial problems may arise. Historically, hemiarthroplasty or glenoid grafting with total shoulder arthroplasty yielded inconsistent and unsatisfactory results. Underlying pathologies in patients who have an irreparable rotator cuff-deficient shoulder, cuff tear arthropathy, or severe glenoid bone loss can considerably alter the mechanical function of the shoulder and create treatment dilemmas that are difficult to overcome. A better biomechanical understanding of these pathologic adaptations has improved treatment options. In the past three decades, reverse total shoulder arthroplasty was developed to treat these complex shoulder conditions not by specifically re-creating the anatomy but by using the remaining functional tissue to improve shoulder balance. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty has achieved reliable improvements in both pain and function. Initial implant designs lacked scientific evidence to support the design rationale, and many implants failed because surgeons did not completely understand the forces involved or the pathology being treated. Implant function and clinical results will continue to improve as surgeons' biomechanical understanding of shoulder disease and reverse shoulder arthroplasty implants increases.

Revision for a failed reverse: a 12-year review of a lateralized implant.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was (1) to evaluate the rates of reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) revisions during a 12-year period, (2) to assess the influence of primary diagnosis and the impact of implant modifications on revisions, (3) to describe surgical management of failed RSA, and (4) to analyze outcomes of patients with minimum 24-month follow-up. METHODS: A retrospective database review identified primary diagnosis for 1418 patients who underwent RSA from 2000 to 2012. A subgroup of 85 patients required return to the operating room for removal or exchange of components. Indication to reoperate, intraoperative management, and outcomes were reviewed. Indications were grouped into 7 categories: baseplate failure, humeral component dissociation, glenosphere dissociation, glenohumeral dislocation, aseptic humeral loosening, periprosthetic fracture, and infection. During the study, design modifications were made to the baseplate, humeral socket, and glenosphere. Surgical strategies were analyzed through operative reports. Range of motion, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores, and Simple Shoulder Test scores were collected before and after surgery and compared for 58 patients with 2-year follow-up. RESULTS: Overall revision rate was 6%. Patients undergoing RSA for failed hemiarthroplasty had the highest revision rate (10%). Indications for revision included baseplate failure (2.5%), infection (1.3%), humeral dissociation (0.7%), glenosphere dissociation (0.6%), periprosthetic fracture (0.4%), glenohumeral dislocation (0.4%), and aseptic humeral loosening (0.3%). Baseplate modifications reduced the incidence of baseplate failure to 0.3%. Range of motion and the Simple Shoulder Test and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores improved. CONCLUSION: Although revision RSA is challenging, with higher risk for complications compared with primary RSA, patients still exhibit significant clinical improvements.

Distal Humerus Fractures: Open Reduction Internal Fixation.

Distal humerus fractures are challenging injuries for the upper extremity surgeon. However, recent techniques in open reduction internal fixation have been powerful tools in getting positive outcomes. To get such results, the surgeon must be aware of how to properly use these techniques in their respective practices. The method of fixation depends on the fracture, taking the degree of comminution and the restoration of the columns and articular surface into account. This article helps surgeons understand the concepts behind open reduction internal fixation of the distal humerus and makes them aware of pitfalls that may lead to negative results.

Return to Play After Open Bankart Repair: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Results of open Bankart repair have been well reported. However, less information is available outlining the timetable for return to play (RTP) in athletes after this procedure. PURPOSE: To review the current literature regarding (1) the timetable recommended for athletes to RTP after an open Bankart repair and (2) the objective criteria on which the decision to allow an athlete to RTP is based. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted of all relevant English-language articles using the electronic databases OVID and PubMed between the years 1947 and 2012 to identify open Bankart repair. Two reviewers screened articles for eligibility based on the following criteria: (1) an open Bankart repair, (2) a minimum follow-up of at least 8 months, (3) any report that described the procedure in athletes, and (4) any report that described the time for an athlete to RTP. All relevant data were collected and analyzed with regard to number of patients; mean follow-up; Rowe, Constant, and American Shoulder and Elbow (ASES) scores; redislocation rate; and return-to-sport timing. RESULTS: In all, 559 relevant citations were identified, of which 29 articles met the inclusion criteria. The mean follow-up was 51.7 months (range, 8-162 months), and the mean age was 25.9 years (range, 21-31 years). The average Rowe score for all studies was 86.9 (range, 63-90). The average redislocation rate was 5.3%. Twenty-six of 29 studies cited a specific timetable for unrestricted RTP, with an average of 23.2 weeks (range, 12-36 weeks). Only 38% of authors reported sport-specific criteria for return to competition, with the majority allowing return to noncontact sports at 12 to 16 weeks, and the resumption of throwing/contact sports by 24 weeks. Three reports described specific functional parameters for RTP. CONCLUSION: The current review summarized return-to-play guidelines for athletic competition after open Bankart repair. These data may provide general guidelines to aid surgeons when determining the appropriate timetable to allow an athlete to return to unrestricted competition.