Extensor Mechanism Reconstruction After Total Knee Arthroplasty with Allograft Versus Synthetic Mesh: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort.

INTRODUCTION: Patellar and quadriceps tendon ruptures after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) have historically poor outcomes. To date, there is no consensus for optimal treatment. The purpose of this study is to directly compare clinical outcomes and survivorship between allograft versus synthetic mesh for reconstruction of native extensor mechanism (EM) rupture after TKA. METHODS: A multicenter, retrospective review identifying consecutive TKA patients operated between December 2009 to November 2019 was conducted. Patients aged ≥ 45 years old with native EM disruption treated with either allograft or synthetic mesh with minimum 2 year follow-up were included. Demographic information, injury mechanism, range of motion, surgical time, revision surgeries, and postoperative Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scores (KOOS Jr.) were collected. Student t-tests and Fisher exact tests were used to compare the demographic data between groups. The Kaplan-Meier survival curve method was used to determine the survivorship as treatment failure was defined as postoperative EM lag >30° or revision surgery. Survival curves were compared using the log-rank test. Univariate Cox proportional hazard regression identified risk factors associated with treatment failure. RESULTS: Twenty patients underwent EM reconstruction using allograft versus 35 with synthetic mesh. Both groups had similar demographics and an average follow-up time of 3.5 years (P = 0.98). Patients treated with allograft had significantly greater postoperative flexion than patients treated with mesh (99.4 ± 9.5 allograft versus 92.6 ± 13.6 synthetic mesh, P = 0.04). Otherwise, there was no difference in postoperative outcomes between the two groups in average KOOS Jr. (P = 0.29), extensor lag (P = 0.15), graft failure (P = 0.71), revision surgery rates (P = 0.81), surgical time (P = 0.42), or ambulatory status (P = 0.34) at the most recent follow-up. Survival curve comparison also yielded no difference at up to 5-year follow-up (P = 0.48). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that reconstruction with allograft or synthetic mesh leads to similar clinical outcomes with good survivorship. Future studies, including larger randomized control trials, are required to determine the superior reconstruction method for this injury. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

How common is nerve injury after reverse shoulder arthroplasty? A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Nerve injury following reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) is a known risk factor with wide ranging incidences reported. This systematic review evaluates the overall incidence of nerve injury following primary and revision RSA and summarizes the characteristics of the nerve injuries reported in the current literature. METHODS: A systematic review was performed using separate database searches (Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane) following the PRISMA guidelines. Search criteria included the title terms "reverse shoulder," "reverse total shoulder," "inverted shoulder," and "inverted total shoulder" with publication dates ranging from 01/01/2010 to 01/01/2022. Studies that reported neurological injuries and complications were included and evaluated for primary RSA, revision RSA, number of nerve injuries, and which nerves were affected. RESULTS: After exclusion, our systematic review consisted of 188 articles. A total of 40,146 patients were included, with 65% female. The weighted mean age was 70.3 years. The weighted mean follow-up was 35.4 months. The rate of nerve injury after RSA was 1.3% (510 of 40,146 RSAs). The rate of injury was greater in revision RSA compared to primary RSA (2.4% vs. 1.3%). Nerve injury was most common in RSAs done for a primary diagnosis of acute proximal humerus fracture (4.0%), followed by cuff tear arthropathy (3.0%), DJD (2.6%), and inflammatory arthritis (1.7%). Massive rotator cuff tears and post-traumatic arthritis cases had the lowest nerve injury rates (1.0% and 1.4%, respectively). The axillary nerve was the most commonly reported nerve that was injured in both primary and revision RSA (0.6%), followed by the ulnar nerve (0.26%) and median nerve (0.23%). Brachial plexus injury was reported in 0.19% of overall RSA cases. CONCLUSION: Based on current English literature, nerve injuries occur at a rate of 1.3% after primary RSA compared with 2.4% after revision RSA. The most common nerve injury was to the axillary nerve (0.64%), with the most common operative diagnosis associated with nerve injury after RSA being acute proximal humerus fracture (4.0%). Surgeons should carefully counsel patients prior to surgery regarding the risk of nerve injury.