Risk Factors for Failure of Nonoperative Treatment of Posterior Shoulder Labral Tears on Magnetic Resonance Imaging.

INTRODUCTION: There are no reports in the literature describing risk factors for failure of nonoperative treatment of patients with posterior labral tears on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The purpose of this study is to identify risk factors for failure of nonoperative treatment in patients with an isolated posterior glenoid labral tear identified on MRI only. Patients with posterior labral tears on MRI who fail to improve with nonoperative treatment likely share a constellation of clinical history, physical exam, and radiographic findings. METHODS: One hundred and fifty-nine active duty military service members under the age of 40 with a posterior labral tear seen on MRI and who were clinically evaluated by a musculoskeletal trained physician were identified. We retrospectively evaluated their records ensuring a minimum of 2 years follow-up after MRI to identify surgical intervention for the posterior labral tear during this time period. Patients were stratified into two groups, those treated with any combination of nonoperative modalities and those treated with posterior labral repair surgery during the 2 years after the MRI. The electronic medical records were reviewed for clinical presentation and physical exam results. We measured multiple radiographic parameters, including glenoid version, size of the tear, and bone loss on MRI. Qualitative and quantitative data were compared between groups using Fisher's exact test and Student's t-test, respectively. This study was conducted under institutional review board approval. RESULTS: Of the 157 patients' shoulders in our study, 52% (n = 82) of patients with posterior labral tears underwent nonoperative treatment while 48% (n = 75) underwent surgery. The significant risk factors associated with surgery were a history of a specific injury, primary presenting complaint of instability, patient reported history of subluxation, inability to trust their shoulder with overhead activity, decreased strength with weight lifting, positive posterior load/shift exam, positive anterior apprehension, increased osseous glenoid retroversion, increased humeral head subluxation ratio, and anterior labral height (P < 0.05). Patients with a chief complaint of pain were much more likely to succeed with nonoperative treatment while those with instability underwent surgery more often. Ten (12.5%) of the surgical procedures included an anterior and posterior labral repair/stabilization procedure. CONCLUSION: Patients with an MRI confirmed posterior labral tear, which present with subjective complaints and physical exam maneuvers consistent with instability, appear less likely to be treated nonoperatively. Increased glenoid retroversion and posterior humeral head subluxation may also predispose patients toward surgical treatment. Additionally, posterior labral tears may extend into the anterior labrum more frequently than is recognized on MRI.

Extra-Articular Retained Missiles; Is Surveillance of Lead Levels Needed?

Background: Although gunshot wounds are relatively common, lead toxicity associated with extra-articular retained missiles (EARMs) is an uncommon, yet potentially devastating, complication. Although the risk of lead toxicity with intra-articular retained missiles is well known, EARMs are routinely left in situ or only removed in selected circumstances secondary to the relatively rare occurrence of complications. Methods: We first describe a patient with systemic lead poisoning associated with retained lead fragments after a gunshot-induced left femoral shaft fracture. We then performed a systematic review of the literature to answer the following questions: (1) In the setting of retained extra-articular bullets and/or bullet fragments, is regular monitoring and/or surveillance of lead levels in the blood routinely indicated? and, if so, (2) what are the selected factors that portend an increased risk for elevations in blood lead levels in the setting of retained extra-articular bullets and/or bullet fragments? The systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) reporting guidelines, of the English language literature utilizing Medline (PubMed), EMBASE, Cochrane, and CINAHL on the topic of lead poisoning, retained bullet, and gunshot wound, and then searched for additional references by manually searching of bibliographies of the included references. Studies were included if they provided clinical data on one or both of our study questions; included studies were evaluated using the accepted levels of evidence. Findings: Routine monitoring or surveillance of lead levels in blood is recommended in all cases of EARM at the time of hospital admission and again at discharge, followed by monthly intervals until 3 mo post-injury and then again at 1 yr post-injury. The studies identified demonstrated significant risk factors for elevated blood lead levels in the setting of EARM, which included the number of retained missiles and concomitant fracture. Discussion: Recommendations for routine monitoring and surveillance of blood lead levels in all cases of EARM are conflicting, but such monitoring appears to be warranted given that the potential risks and morbidity associated with systemic lead poisoning are outweighed by any potential harm of short-term, blood lead level monitoring. Outside of concomitant fracture, the evidence for making further clinical recommendations regarding selected risk factors that portend an increased risk for elevated blood lead levels after gunshot injury is weak. Larger level II and III studies are needed to determine the indications for and frequency of lead toxicity screening after retained EARM.