Discovery Elbow System arthroplasty polyethylene bearing exchange: outcomes and experience.

BACKGROUND: The Discovery Elbow System (DES) utilizes a polyethylene bearing within the ulnar component. An exchange bearing requires preoperative freezing and implantation within 2 minutes of freezer removal to allow insertion. We report our outcomes and experience using this technique. METHODS: This was an analysis of a two-surgeon consecutive series of DES bearing exchange. Inclusion criteria included patients in which exchange was attempted with a minimum 1-year follow-up. Clinical and radiographic review was performed 1, 2, 3, 5, 8 and 10 years postoperative. Outcome measures included range of movement, Oxford Elbow Score (OES), Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), complications and requirement for revision surgery. RESULTS: Eleven DESs in 10 patients were included. Indications were bearing wear encountered during humeral component revision (n=5); bearing failure (n=4); and infection treated with debridement, antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR; n=2). Bearing exchange was conducted on the first attempt in 10 cases. One case required a second attempt. One patient developed infection postoperatively managed with two-stage revision. Mean follow-up of the bearing exchange DES was 3 years. No further surgery was required, with no infection recurrence in DAIR cases. Mean elbow flexion-extension and pronosupination arcs were 107° (±22°) and 140° (±26°). Mean OES was 36/48 (±12) and MEPS was 83/100 (±19). CONCLUSIONS: Our results support the use of DES bearing exchange in cases of bearing wear with well-fixed stems or acute infection. This series provides surgeons managing DES arthroplasty with management principles, successful and reproducible surgical techniques and expected clinical outcomes in performing DES polyethylene bearing exchange. Level of evidence: IV.

Does long-term follow-up and monitoring of primary shoulder arthroplasty identify failing implants requiring revision?

BACKGROUND: Published scoping review has identified evidence paucity related to long-term follow-up of shoulder arthroplasty. We aim to report effectiveness of elective primary shoulder arthroplasty surveillance in identifying failing implants requiring revision. METHODS: A prospective database recording shoulder arthroplasty and subsequent follow-up surveillance in a shoulder unit was analyzed. Shoulder arthroplasty was performed by 4 fellowship-trained shoulder surgeons for accepted elective indications including the use of anatomic arthroplasty in arthritic shoulders with intact rotator cuff and a reverse prosthesis being used in rotator cuff-deficient shoulders and rotator cuff-competent arthritic shoulders when deemed preferable by the treating surgeon. All shoulder arthroplasty implants used had achieved a minimum 7A Orthopaedic Data Evaluation Panel (ODEP) rating. The included shoulder arthroplasties were performed between May 1, 2004, and December 31, 2021, with minimum 1-year follow-up. Surveillance program involves specialist physiotherapist review at 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 10, and 15 years postoperatively, including clinical examination, outcome scoring, and radiographs. Patient-initiated review occurred between time points if a patient requested assessment because of symptoms. Outcome measures include ratio of failing implants identified by surveillance and patient-initiated review, with number of surveillance reviews offered and proportion that identified a failing implant requiring revision calculated. RESULTS: A total of 1002 elective primary shoulder arthroplasty with minimum 1-year follow-up were performed (547 reverse total shoulder arthroplasty [rTSA], 234 anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty [aTSA], and 221 hemiarthroplasty [HA]). A total of 238 patients died prior to December 31, 2022, resulting in 4019 surveillance appointments offered. Thirty-eight prostheses required revision ≥1 year postoperatively (6 rTSA, 9 aTSA, and 23 HA), with surveillance identifying requirement in 53% (33% rTSA, 56% aTSA, and 57% HA) and patient-initiated review in 47%. Mean years from implantation to revision was 5.2 (2.7 rTSA, 3.6 aTSA, and 6.6 HA). Revision indications included rotator cuff failure (56% aTSR and 43% HA) and glenoid erosion (57% HA). CONCLUSION: This is the first series reporting effectiveness of shoulder arthroplasty surveillance in identifying implants requiring revision. Surveillance identified more than half of implants requiring revision, although only 0.5% of appointments identified revision requirement. Surveillance enrolment may influence patient-initiated review utilization; therefore, similar studies using only patient-initiated follow-up would help inform recommendations.

Physiotherapist-led exercise versus usual care (waiting-list) control for patients awaiting rotator cuff repair surgery: A pilot randomised controlled trial (POWER).

BACKGROUND: Once a decision to undergo rotator cuff repair surgery is made, patients are placed on the waiting list. It can take weeks or months to receive surgery. There has been a call to move from waiting lists to 'preparation' lists to better prepare patients for surgery and to ensure it remains an appropriate treatment option for them. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility, as measured by recruitment rates, treatment fidelity and follow-up rates, of a future multi-centre randomised controlled trial to compare the clinical and cost-effectiveness of undertaking a physiotherapist-led exercise programme while waiting for surgery versus usual care (waiting-list control). DESIGN: Two-arm, multi-centre pilot randomised controlled trial with feasibility objectives in six NHS hospitals in England. METHOD: Adults (n = 76) awaiting rotator cuff repair surgery were recruited and randomly allocated to a programme of physiotherapist-led exercise (n = 38) or usual care control (n = 38). RESULTS: Of 302 eligible patients, 76 (25%) were randomised. Of 38 participants randomised to physiotherapist-led exercise, 28 (74%) received the exercise programme as intended. 51/76 (67%) Shoulder Pain and Disability Index questionnaires were returned at 6-months. Of 76 participants, 32 had not received surgery after 6-months (42%). Of those 32, 20 were allocated to physiotherapist-led exercise; 12 to usual care control. CONCLUSIONS: A future multi-centre randomised controlled trial is feasible but would require planning for variable recruitment rates between sites, measures to improve treatment fidelity and opportunity for surgical exit, and optimisation of follow-up. A fully powered, randomised controlled trial is now needed to robustly inform clinical decision-making.

Developing an application for the UK Pre-Doctoral Clinical and Practitioner Academic Fellowship (PCAF): the collective experience of a community of physiotherapists.

For physiotherapists and other healthcare professionals, developing capability and expertise in research can be challenging. However, involvement in research is beneficial at organisational and individual levels, both for clinicians and patients. One way to embark on research is to apply for a personal fellowship such as the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Pre-Doctoral Clinical Academic Fellowship (PCAF). While the NIHR has guidance on how to complete the application form, it can be difficult to implement this guidance and understand what a competitive application looks like. As a group of physiotherapists and academic supervisors, who have applied for NIHR PCAFs, what follows is a supportive resource, to inform others who might be thinking of applying. CONTRIBUTION OF PAPER.

Development of a physiotherapist-led exercise programme for traumatic tears of the rotator cuff for the SPeEDy study.

OBJECTIVES: The SPeEDy study (Surgery vs. physiotherapist-led exercise for traumatic tears of the rotator cuff) is a two-arm, parallel group, pilot and feasibility randomised controlled trial aiming to evaluate the feasibility of a future main trial. In this paper, the development process and the resultant physiotherapist-led exercise programme used in the SPeEDy study is described. METHODS: Thirteen physiotherapists and three patients met to discuss and develop the key principles that should underpin the exercise programme. RESULTS: Taking in to account the current research evidence and incorporating expert clinical and patient opinion, the group developed an individualised, structured and progressive physiotherapist-led exercise programme based on the principle of self dosing. Exercise prescription within the programme is based on establishing the current functional capacity of the patient in relation to the most challenging shoulder movements and is supported over approximately six contact sessions across a 12-week period. CONCLUSION: The SPeEDy study aims to recruit 76 participants across eight hospitals and will provide high quality evidence about the feasibility of a future main randomised controlled trial in a clinical area where there is a lack of evidence from randomised controlled trials to support clinical decision-making. ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04027205) - Registered on 19 July 2019. Available via https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04027205.

Rehabilitation following shoulder arthroplasty in the United Kingdom National Health Service: A survey of publicly facing information.

INTRODUCTION: The prevalence of shoulder arthroplasty (SA) is rising, but there is limited research evaluating rehabilitation following SA and whether there is an optimal approach remains unknown. The aim of this study was to understand current National Health Service (NHS) practice for rehabilitation following SA as a platform for conducting much needed further research. METHODS: Two reviewers independently undertook electronic searches for publicly available information sheets (PIS) from websites of NHS Trusts that included detail about rehabilitation following SA, for example, duration of immobilisation. One reviewer extracted data, and a second reviewer verified this. ETHICAL APPROVAL: Not required. RESULTS: Forty-three PIS from 40 Trusts were identified. Twenty-four referred to more than one type of arthroplasty (anatomic, reverse and hemiarthroplasty) but did not describe different approaches to rehabilitation based on prosthesis type. Twenty-five PIS provided some instruction regarding movement restrictions, which varied considerably. All PIS referred to postoperative immobilisation, typically with a sling, with median duration of 4 weeks (range 0 to 8). Thirty-four PIS reported commencing passive exercise immediately. Median time to commencing active exercise was 4 weeks (range 1 to 6) and 5 weeks (range 1 to 16) for resisted exercise. Median time expected to return to driving was 6 weeks (range 3 to 12) and general work 12 weeks (range 3 to 26). CONCLUSION: This study has highlighted significant heterogeneity between rehabilitation approaches following SA, not previously reported in the United Kingdom, with a lack of specific rehabilitation PIS for different prosthesis types. Our results will facilitate evaluation of rehabilitation strategies in future research.

Iontophoresis versus subcutaneous injection: a comparison of two methods of local anesthesia delivery in children.

The relative efficacy of local lidocaine anesthesia administered by subcutaneous injection and by iontophoresis was studied in 13 pediatric renal dialysis patients (ages 11-19 years: mean age 15.8 years). Each patient served as his own control at 3 assessment periods. Each type of anesthetic delivery method was administered to either of 2 fistula sites. Patients used visual analogue scales to rate pain, anxiety, and satisfaction for each method. Behavioral observations were made by an observer and a nurse. Paired sample t tests were used to compare the 2 drug delivery methods for patient, observer, and nurse ratings across assessment periods. There were no significant differences between methods for ratings of anxiety before or during the procedure. The injection of lidocaine was rated as more painful by the observer and nurse (with a trend for patients) than the use of iontophoresis. But, the patients and nurse rated the injection method as more effective. Iontophoresis was never rated as superior to the injection method, even after turning over control of drug delivery by iontophoresis to the patient (sessions 2 and 3). Patients were more satisfied with iontophoresis at session 2 when they took over control, but lost enthusiasm by session 3. Three subjects withdrew from the study due to cutaneous burns and prolonged anesthesia delivery time with iontophoresis. Iontophoresis appears to be effective in reducing the pain of dialysis needle insertion but requires further investigation before it can be considered a viable alternative to subcutaneous injection.