Arthroscopic Distal Clavicle Bone Bock Combined With Hill-Sachs Remplissage for Primary Anterior Shoulder Instability Treatment.

Arthroscopic distal clavicle transfer is an effective option to treat anterior shoulder instability with glenoid bone loss. The use of this free bone graft in an all-inside procedure, with a cortical button fixation makes the construct simpler to perform and allows to be combined with a Hill-Sachs Remplissage to address humeral bone defect. The morbidity of the donor site is low and provide the biologic capacity of an autograft. We report a step-by-step procedure, and the rationale are discussed.

Better Constant Scores and Active Forward Elevation Using Deltopectoral Versus Anterosuperior Approach for Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty: Matched Cohort Study.

Purpose: To determine, from a sizable cohort of reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA), whether the deltopectoral (DP) or anterosuperior (AS) approach grant better outcomes at a minimum follow-up of 24 months. Methods: The authors reviewed 743 RSAs in patients with primary osteoarthritis (OA) with or without rotator cuff lesions and secondary OA due to rotator cuff tears. The DP approach was used in 540 and the AS approach in 203. Pre- and post-operative constant scores (CSs) and shoulder range of motion were recorded. Results: Of the initial cohort of 743 shoulders, 193 (25.7%) were lost to follow-up, 16 (2.1%) died, and 33 (4.4%) were revised; 540 shoulders were operated using DP approach (73%), of which 22 were revised (4.1%), while 203 were operated using the AS approach (27%), of which 11 were revised (5.4%). Propensity score matching resulted in two groups: 172 shoulders operated by DP approach, and 88 shoulders operated by AS approach. Comparing outcomes of the matched groups at 2 or more years also revealed that, compared to the AS approach, the DP approach resulted in significantly better post-operative CSs (67.3 ± 14.0° vs 60.8 ± 18.3, P = 0.017), active forward elevation (137° ± 27.4° vs 129° ± 29.8; P = 0.031). Conclusion: At 2 or more years following RSA, the DP approach granted significantly better CS (by 6.5 points) and active forward elevation (by 8°) compared to the AS approach. The differences observed are clinically relevant and must be considered to manage patient expectations following RSA and for selecting surgical approach depending on their functional needs. Level of evidence: III, comparative study.

Simple acute postero-lateral elbow dislocation: A historical perspective.

PURPOSE: The aims of this study were to summarize (1) the historical knowledge of the posterolateral elbow dislocation (PLED) pattern and the biomechanical, radiographic, and clinical data that engendered its evolution; and (2) to help clinicians better understand the management of PLED. METHODS: A literature search was performed using Ovid, Scopus and Cochrane Library, and the Medical Subject Headings vocabulary. Results are discussed as a chronologic review of the relevant literature between 1920-2022. RESULTS: In 1966 Osborn and Cotterill were the first to describe posterolateral rotatory instability (PLRI) causing the PLED. Several theories on PLED were then published by others surgeons as our understanding of elbow biomechanics continued to improve. Multiple treatment protocols have been designed based on the aforementioned theories. Conservative and surgical treatment for PLED provides excellent functional outcomes. However, high rates of persistent pain stiffness and instability have been reported long-term, and no single approach to treatment has been widely accepted. CONCLUSION: Despite a growing body of biomechanical evidence, there is no consensus surgical indication for the treatment of PLED. Both conservative and surgical management result in satisfactory functional outcomes after PLED. However, elevated rates of residual pain, and instability have also been described and may limit heavy labor and sports participation. The next challenge for elbow surgeons will be to identify those patients who would benefit from surgical stabilization following PLED.

The arthroscopic double-button Latarjet does not modify the static posterior translation of the humeral head.

INTRODUCTION: The Latarjet procedure treats anterior instability of the shoulder and is based on a triple anterior lock, where the conjoint tendon straps the lower third of the subscapularis muscle. Excessive posterior translation of the humeral head is a known risk factor for shoulder osteoarthritis. No in vivo study has investigated the effect of the bone block on the posterior static translation of the humeral epiphysis. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of the bone block on the static posterior translation of the humeral head. The hypothesis was that this procedure increased this translation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included patients treated arthroscopically for anterior shoulder instability by a double-button Latarjet. An independent examiner analyzed the CT scans preoperatively, at 15 days, and at least 6 months postoperatively according to a standardized protocol. The analysis focused on the position of the bone block in the axial and coronal planes relative to the glenoid. The posterior translation was automatically calculated using the Blueprint© planning software. RESULTS: Thirty-five patients were included with a mean age of 25 years (16-43), according to a 4M/1F sex ratio. The graft was perfectly flush to the subchondral bone in 63% (n=22) of cases and subequatorial in 91% (n=32). Preoperative posterior humeral translation was 52%. The mean immediate postoperative posterior humeral translation was 56%, and 57% at more than 6 months. The change in mean posterior humeral translation between preoperative/6 months was +0.94% [-20%; +12%] (p=0.29) and immediate postoperative/6 months +0.34% [-18%; +15%] (p=0.84). Gender, hypermobility and the axial position of the bone block did not influence the change in posterior humeral translation. The equatorial position of the bone block appeared to increase posterior humeral translation by +10%±5.2% [-0.427; 20.823] (p=0.07). CONCLUSION: This work refutes our initial hypothesis. The change in static posterior humeral translation after arthroscopic Latarjet bone block remains stable at more than 6 months of follow-up. This procedure does not alter the anatomical position of the humeral head in relation to the glenoid. On the other hand, a more cranial positioning of the bone block could have an influence. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Latarjet in women for anterior shoulder instability: a case series analysis.

PURPOSE: The Latarjet procedure is traditionally used to treat chronic anterior shoulder instability associated with glenoid bone loss. However, few series have analyzed outcomes in a female-only population. The objective of this study was to evaluate the clinical and radiological outcomes of a Latarjet bone block in this specific population. METHODS: This single-center retrospective study included 15 women (mean age 35 ± 11.3; 19-60) reviewed with a minimum follow-up of 2 years. The procedure was performed using the open bone block screw technique (n = 7) or by arthroscopy with cortical button (n = 8). Clinical evaluation was based on active range of motion measurements, Rowe and Walch-Duplay scores, and subjective shoulder value (SSV). Radiographic analysis explored bone block healing at the last follow-up. RESULTS: At a mean follow-up of 48 months (32-86), no recurrence was reported. The mean Rowe score was 91 points (70-100), Walch-Duplay 90 points (60-100), and SSV 87% (70-100). The active mobilities reached 169° (± 9°) in elevation, 57° (± 15°) in external rotation at side, and 89° (± 6°) in abduction. The return-to-sport rate was 91%. Five patients experienced persistent anterior pain, with screws requiring hardware removal in 2 (p = 0.02). Radiological assessment detected one case of nonunion (7%). CONCLUSION: Women treated with the Latarjet procedure experienced satisfactory midterm clinical outcomes. The arthroscopic technique using cortical button fixation seems to avoid residual anterior pain requiring hardware removal.

Terrible triad injury of the elbow: a spectrum of theories.

For more than one century, understanding the injury mechanism leading to the terrible triad of the elbow (TTE) was a significant challenge for surgeons. We aimed to summarize: (1) the history of the treatment of TTE and (2) the increasing scientific knowledge that supported its evolution. Five electronic databases were searched between 1920 and 2022. Results were reported as a comprehensive review of the relevant literature. Between 1940 and 1980, surgical exploration allowed observation of complex elbow instability involving both radial head, coronoid process, and ligament(s) injuries. In 1966, Osborne introduced the concept of posterolateral rotatory instability as the first mechanism injury to explain the complex elbow instability. From 1980 to 1995, a biomechanical revolution by American pioneers critically improved our understanding of elbow instability. After 1992, a few unifying theories and surgical protocols were provided, but those have divided the surgeons' population. The formalization of the TTE treatment allowed avoiding of terrible short-term outcomes. However, post-traumatic osteoarthritis (PTOA) at long-term follow-up is still an issue. No consensual surgical protocol for the treatment of TTE has been widely accepted. While the outcomes of the TTE have been improved, the rate of PTOA at long-term follow-up is still high regardless of the treatments. The terrible triad has given way to the subtle triad with persistent microinstability of the elbow. The next challenge for elbow surgeons is to diagnose and fix this persistent subclinical instability after surgery in order to prevent the onset of PTOA.

Outcomes at Long-term Follow-up After Open Latarjet Versus Open Bankart Repair in Rugby Players.

Background: Because rugby is a collision sport, it exposes players to a high risk of recurrence after anterior shoulder stabilization. Therefore, the choice of surgical procedure warrants close attention in order to optimize the time to return to sport and the stability of the shoulder throughout the player's career. Hypothesis: The open Latarjet procedure would allow for a faster return to play and provide a lower rate of recurrence than the open Bankart repair at long-term follow-up. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: The study retrospectively enrolled 62 competitive rugby players who had undergone an anterior shoulder instability procedure and had at least 5 years of follow-up data. A total of 32 players treated with an open Bankart repair (BK group) were compared with 30 players (31 shoulders) treated with an open Latarjet procedure (LT group). Outcomes between groups were compared with the Rowe score, Walch-Duplay score, recurrence rate, and osteoarthritis evaluation on plain radiograph (Samilson classification). Results: The recurrence rate was significantly higher at 18.8% for the BK group (mean follow-up, 6.9 ± 1.7 years) compared with 3.3% for the LT group (mean follow-up, 6.2 ± 1.4 years) (P = .04). No postoperative complications occurred in the BK group, whereas 1 infection and 1 hematoma required a second surgery in the LT group (P = .14). In the BK and LT groups, 97% and 90% of players, respectively, were able to return to rugby at the same level or higher (P = .27), at a mean time of 8 and 6.3 months, respectively (P = .03). The mean Rowe and Walch-Duplay scores were not significantly different between the groups; however, the osteoarthritis rate was significantly higher in the BK versus the LT group (68% vs 38%, respectively; P = .03); 23% of patients, all in the BK group, had Samilson grade 2 osteoarthritis. Conclusion: The open Latarjet procedure outperformed the open Bankart procedure in terms of stability, time to return to play, and radiological outcomes at long-term follow-up in competitive rugby players.

Scapular fractures osteosynthesis via Judet's posterior approach: clinical and radiographic results.

PURPOSE: Scapular fractures are uncommon and mainly treated nonoperatively. Judet's posterior approach allows access to the fracture site through the infraspinatus fossa and may be a technical option when ORIF is decided. The aims of this study were to determine clinical and radiographic outcomes of patients who underwent scapular body and/or glenoid fractures fixation via Judet's posterior approach. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective single-centre study, and all patients admitted for scapular fracture who underwent osteosynthesis via Judet's approach between January 2014 and September 2021 were included. At a minimum follow-up of one year, clinical outcomes were analyzed through subjective shoulder value (SSV) and Constant-Murley score (CMS). Strength in external rotation was measured in adduction and in 90° abduction and compared to healthy side. Radiographic analysis evaluated postoperative fracture reduction on CT scan and glenohumeral osteoarthritis according to Samilson's classification at last follow-up. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients were included with a mean follow-up of 44.9 months. Mean SSV, CMS, and adjusted CMS were 73.8% ± 21.0, 65.8 points ± 19.5, and 72.8% ± 20.8, respectively. Strength in external rotation in adduction of the affected shoulder showed significant impairment when compared with the contralateral side (respectively 7.79 kg ± 4.29 and 12.0 kg ± 3.84, p = 0.02). All fractures healed uneventfully, but five patients (23.8%) required early revision surgery for intra-articular screws in three. Intra-articular gap measure decreased from 3.75 mm ± 1.93 in preoperative to 0.59 mm ± 0.97 after ORIF. The rate of arthritis was 15% at last follow-up. CONCLUSION: Patients who underwent scapular fracture osteosynthesis via Judet's posterior approach exhibited satisfactory but incomplete recovery of the affected shoulder as evidenced by functional scores and external rotation strength measurements at a mean follow-up of 44.9 months. Because of the risk of intra-articular screws, postoperative CT scan is mandatory.

After failed radial head arthroplasty, what are the options? Risk factors and results of revisions in a multicenter study.

Introduction: Few multicenter studies have analyzed the outcome of revision surgery of radial head arthroplasties (RHA) in the medium term follow up. The objective is twofold: to determine the factors associated with revision of RHAs and to analyze the results of revision with 2 surgical techniques: isolated removal of the RHA or revision with a new RHA (R-RHA). Hypothesis: There are associated factors of RHA revision and RHA revision results in satisfactory clinical and functional outcomes. Methods: Twenty-eight patients were included in this multicenter retrospective study, with all surgical indications for initial RHA being traumatic/post-traumatic. The mean age was 47 ± 13 years with a mean follow-up of 70 ± 48 months. This series included two groups: the isolated RHA removal group (n = 17) and the revision RHA with new radial head prosthesis (R-RHA) group (n = 11). Evaluation was clinical and radiological with univariate and multivariate analysis. Results: Two factors associated with RHA revision were identified: a pre-existing capitellar lesion (p = 0.047) and a RHA placed for a secondary indication (<0.001). Revision for all 28 patients resulted in improved pain (pre-op Visual Analog Scale 4.7 ± 3 vs. post-op 1.57 ± 2.2, p < 0.001), mobilities (pre-op flexion 118 ± 20 vs. post-op 130 ± 13, p = 0.03; pre-op extension -30 ± 21 vs post-op -20 ± 15, p = 0.025; pre-op pronation 59 ± 12 vs post-op 72 ± 17, p = 0.04; pre-op supination 48 ± 2 vs post-op 65 ± 22, p = 0.027) and functional scores. Mobility and pain control were, for stable elbows, satisfactory in the isolated removal group. When the initial or revision indication was instability, the DASH (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand = 10 ± 5) and MEPS (Mayo Elbow Performance score = 85 ± 16) scores were satisfactory in the R-RHA group. Discussion: In the case of a radial head fracture, RHA is a satisfactory first-line solution without pre-existing capitellar injury, its results being much weaker in the case of ORIF failure and fracture sequelae. In case of RHA revision, isolated removal or R-RHA adapted according to the pre-operative radio-clinical exam. Level of evidence: IV.

Midterm results of stemless impaction shoulder arthroplasty for primary osteoarthritis: a prospective, multicenter study.

Background: Stemless shoulder arthroplasty using 4 open-fin press-fit anchors has been showing promising short-term clinical and radiographic results for patients' primary osteoarthritis. This prospective, multicenter study presents 5-year postoperative clinical and radiological outcomes of a stemless shoulder arthroplasty for primary osteoarthritis. Methods: Between November 2012 and December 2015, 100 patients were treated for primary osteoarthritis with the Sidus stem-free shoulder system at 7 European centers. Clinical assessment included the Constant-Murley Score, American Shoulder and Elbow Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form score, Subjective Shoulder Value, and range of motion. True anteroposterior, axial and lateral radiographs were reviewed for osteolysis, glenoid and humerus loosening, heterotopic ossification, radiolucent lines, component migration and humeral bone resorption. In addition to a Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, a comparative analysis between total shoulder arthroplasty and hemiarthroplasty was performed. Results: Seventy-one patients (36 females) with a mean age of 63.8 years (range: 47-79 years) were available for the 5-year clinical and radiographic follow-up (range: 52-79 months). There was a significant increase (P < .0001) in all outcome scores compared to baseline values. Patients with total shoulder arthroplasty (n = 48) achieved significantly better functional outcome than patients with shoulder hemiarthroplasty (n = 23) with regard to the absolute and relative Constant-Murley Score, American Shoulder and Elbow Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form score, and Subjective Shoulder Value as well as greater abduction strength and range of motion in forward elevation and external rotation (P ≤ .004). There were no cases of osteolysis or humeral loosening. There were some cases of heterotopic ossification (1.4%), radiolucency around the humerus (1.4%) or glenoid (25%), glenoid migration (2.1%), inferior osteophytes (1.4%) or humerus bone resorption (9.9%). The 5-year survival was 94%. Conclusion: Patients treated with the Sidus stem-free shoulder system for primary osteoarthritis continue to achieve good clinical and radiographic results without any signs of aseptic humeral implant loosening at 5 years postsurgery.

Midterm outcomes allograft prosthetic composite reconstruction for massive bone loss at the elbow.

BACKGROUND: Revision of a loose total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) is challenging, particularly in the context of massive bone loss (MBL). The use of an allograft prosthetic composite (APC) at the elbow is rare, typically reserved as a salvage procedure for MBL. Thus, limited data describing the outcomes of APCs are available in current literature. HYPOTHESIS: The authors hypothesize that short to midterm clinical outcomes of APC for MBL about the elbow are satisfactory. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between 2009 and 2018, 6 APCs implanted with a semi-constrained Coonrad Morrey prosthesis were performed in 5 females and 1 male. Median patient age was 70 years (range, 49-76 years). The indication for revision was aseptic loosening in all 6 cases (6 humeral and 2 ulnar). Median follow-up was 3.5 years (range, 2-6.7 years). Functional outcomes including Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), Visual Analog Scale (VAS), range of motion (ROM), and radiographic outcomes were assessed for all patients. RESULTS: Median MEPS and VAS scores were 75 (range, 40-90), and 0 (range, 0-8) at latest follow-up, respectively. Median postoperative flexion-extension and prono-supination arcs were 90̊ (range, 70-140̊) and 150 (range, 100-160̊), respectively. Allograft incorporation was noted in 5 (83%) patients; all prostheses were well-fixed. In total, 4 patients (63%) experienced 5 complications (83%) including periprosthetic fracture (n=2), ulnar neuropathy (n=1), aseptic loosening (n=1), and wound dehiscence (n=1). Two (33%) required reoperation with prosthetic retention. CONCLUSION: Elbow reconstruction using allograft prosthetic composite is a viable option for patients with MBL following TEA. The midterm functional outcomes are satisfactory with no revisions required, despite a relatively high rate of complications. Further long-term studies with larger cohorts are needed to better elucidate long-term outcomes and reasons for failure. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV; therapeutic study (case series [no, or historical, control group]).

Which preoperative factors influence the patient's short-term subjective assessment after rotator cuff repair?

INTRODUCTION: To highlight the preoperative risk factors that influence postoperative patient satisfaction following Rotator Cuff Repair (RCR) and to determine whether this satisfaction was correlated with tendon healing. HYPOTHESIS: Preoperative factors influence patient satisfaction, assessed by SSV (Subjective Shoulder Value) postoperatively, with a correlation with tendon healing. METHODS: With a mean age of 60.6 years (40-72), 102 patients with arthroscopic RCR were included retrospectively. The preoperative SSV score was less than or equal to 50%. There was clinical and radiological follow-up with an ultrasound evaluation of tendon healing 6 months postoperatively. We divided the patients into 2 groups using a postoperative SSV of 85% as the cut-off; 55 patients in the first group (SSV>85%); and 47 patients in the second group (SSV<85%). RESULTS: In multivariate analysis, Preoperative risk factors for poor postoperative SSV after RCR were: tobacco use [-8.41 (-13.64; -3.17) p=0.002], fatty infiltration [-3.65 (-6.24 -1.06) p=0.006] and workers compensation [-19.15 (-24.04; -14.27) p<0.001]. When patients were not in workers compensation, the lower their SSV score before surgery, the higher their postoperative SSV score. For patients in workers compensation, the higher the SSV preoperatively, the less elevated was SSV postoperatively. The Sugaya ultrasound classification did not influence the SSV score (p=0.15) CONCLUSIONS: Smoking, fatty infiltration and patients in workers compensation are factors of poorer subjective results evaluated by the SSV score. Tendon healing did not influence the SSV score and patient satisfaction. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV, cohort study.

Long-term results of arthroscopic Bankart repair with Hill-Sachs remplissage.

Background: Arthroscopic Bankart repair with Hill-Sachs remplissage (BHSR) is suggested for the treatment of anterior shoulder instability in the presence of an engaging humeral lesion. The objective of this study is to report the long-term clinical and radiological results of this procedure. Methods: This is a single-center retrospective study including 51 patients who underwent surgery by BHSR for anterior shoulder instability with engaging Hill-Sachs lesion and who were reviewed after a minimum follow-up of 5 years. The mean age was 26 years (16-49; ±8.4) and 70% of the patients practiced sports. The average for Instability Severity Index score was 3.3 points (3-7; ±1.7). At the last follow-up, active range of motion, Subjective Shoulder Value, Walch-Duplay and Rowe scores, and the incidence of osteoarthritis according to the Samilson classification were assessed. Results: At a mean follow-up of 87 months (60.0-124; ±17), 83% of the patients had resumed their sports activities. The mean Rowe, Walch-Duplay, and Subjective Shoulder Value scores were respectively 88 points (51-100; ±12), 82 points (50-100; ±16.4), and 89% (50-100; ±8). There was a recurrence of dislocation or subluxation for 8 patients (15.6%). In univariate analysis, patients who were unstable at follow-up had a deeper Hill-Sachs lesion (25% vs. 18% of the humeral head radius, P = .04) and were younger (19 vs. 27 years, P = .04). Radiographically, 17% of the patients showed signs of osteoarthritis (14% grade 1). Conclusion: Considering that at a follow-up of more than 5 years, the failure rate was more than 15% of the BHSR, this procedure should be recommended with caution in case of deep Hill-Sachs lesions in young patients. The incidence of osteoarthritis after this procedure was acceptable, with few severe forms.

Arthroscopic Latarjet With Cortical Buttons Versus Open Latarjet With Screws: A Short-Term Comparative Study.

BACKGROUND: The arthroscopic bone block procedure according to Latarjet remains a controversial subject, and few comparative studies have demonstrated the benefit of arthroscopy over open surgery. PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS: The objective of this study was to compare both procedures by analyzing the short-term clinical results. The hypothesis was that the arthroscopic procedure is superior to the standard open procedure. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHOD: This was a retrospective comparative study. Patients treated for chronic anterior instability by arthroscopic Latarjet with double cortical buttons (group A) or open Latarjet with screws (group O) with a minimum follow-up of 12 months were included. Intraoperative (duration, complications) and postoperative (complications, pain, mobility, functional scores, resumption of sport, Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale scar aesthetics, satisfaction) data were compared. RESULTS: In total, 50 patients were included (n = 24 in group A, n = 26 in group O). Operating time was longer in group A (103 vs 61 min; P = .001). The average number of days on analgesics was higher in group A (8.9 vs 5.3 days; P = .04). The complication rate was similar for the 2 groups (12.5% vs 27%; P = .46). At 3 months, the loss of external rotation was greater in group A (-33° vs -18°; P = .01), and resumption of sports was less frequent (11% vs 48%; P = .01). At 12 months, the average scores were excellent, with no significants differences between the 2 groups: Walch-Duplay average, 90 points; Rowe, 94 points; Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV), 92.5%; sport SSV, 85%; and Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale score, 17.2 points. CONCLUSION: Over the short term, this comparative study did not prove the superiority of the cortical-button arthroscopic Latarjet procedure over the open Latarjet procedure. A delay in the resumption of sports, longer time to recover range of motion, and no benefit regarding postoperative pain or the aesthetic aspect of the scar were observed in this study with the arthroscopic procedure.

Ultrasonography: an interesting imaging method for ligament assessment during the acute phase of closed elbow injuries.

PURPOSE: To evaluate whether ultrasonography can be used to explore the medial and lateral ligament structures during the acute phase of a closed elbow injury. METHODS: A single-center, prospective study performed between December 2019 and June 2020, including patients who suffered a radial head fracture or elbow dislocation. Two radiologists did a blinded analysis using ultrasonography of visibility, injury grade, and presence of bone avulsion for the radial collateral ligament (RCL), lateral ulnar collateral ligament (LUCL), annular ligament (AL), and anterior (MCLant) and posterior bundles (MCLpost) of the medial collateral ligament. The inter-rater agreement was calculated. The ultrasonography findings were compared with the intraoperative findings in the patients who subsequently underwent surgery. RESULTS: Forty patients were included (28 radial head fractures and 12 elbow dislocations). The inter-rater agreement was strong for all the study parameters (kappa between 0.65 and 1), except for the visibility of the LUCL (kappa 0.52) and the visibility and appearance of the MCLpost (kappa 0.54 and 0.47, respectively). The injured ligaments were thicker than their contralateral counterparts (p < 0.05). In the 10 patients who underwent surgery, the radiological-surgical correlation was 100% for the RCL and medial ligaments and 70% for the LUCL. CONCLUSION: Ultrasonography is a reproducible examination that can be used to assess the damage to elbow ligaments during the acute phase following an injury. This examination could be incorporated into the exploration protocol for elbow injuries during the preoperative assessment and to adapt the treatment.

Arthroscopic double-button Latarjet osteolysis and remodeling at 1-year follow-up.

HYPOTHESIS: The aim of this study was to evaluate the osteolysis rate, graft remodeling, and risk factors for osteolysis at the 1-year threshold after an arthroscopic Latarjet procedure with double-button fixation. METHOD: In this multicenter, retrospective study, postoperative computed tomography scans obtained after an arthroscopic Latarjet procedure with double-button fixation to treat anterior shoulder instability were analyzed at 15 days and at 3, 6, and 12 months. Graft volume, dimensions, and morphologic remodeling were analyzed. RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients were included (mean age, 26 years). At 1 year, osteolysis occurred in 19 of 27 patients (70%). The volume initially decreased until 6 months' follow-up (-35%; range, -75% to +26%) and then increased until our last follow-up. At 1 year, the graft volume decreased by 17% (range, -61% to +56%) compared with the immediate postoperative volume. In multivariate analysis, the rate of osteolysis was inversely associated with an unhealed graft at 3 months (P = .02; ß coefficient = -44.50 [95% confidence interval, -81 to -8]). The maximal height of the graft significantly grew 0.2 cm (range, -55 to +124 mm) (P = .015). In the sagittal plane, osteolysis occurred in the superior part in 100% of patients (27 of 27) whereas bone formation occurred in the inferior part. In the axial plane, osteolysis occurred in the anterior part whereas bone formation occurred in the posterior part. In the articular part, the observed remodeling was aimed to obtain a new anatomic and congruent glenoid. CONCLUSIONS: At 1 year after an arthroscopic Latarjet procedure with double-button fixation, osteolysis occurred in 70% of patients. The rate of osteolysis was 17% of the initial volume. Osteolysis occurred mainly during the first 6 months, in the anterior and superior parts. Remodeling led to a circular anatomic glenoid. This osteolysis did not cause any recurrence of instability or require revision surgery.

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.