Mid-term results of Copeland shoulder cementless surface replacement arthroplasty from an independent centre.

BACKGROUND: The present study reports our experience of Copeland shoulder cementless surface replacement arthroplasty (CSRA) and whether glenoid microfracture influences the progression of glenoid erosion. METHODS: One-hundred-and-twelve CSRAs were performed in 101 patients between 2002 and 2007. Eighty-three patients were alive at the median follow-up time of 72 months (range 9 to 121 months; interquartile range 46 to 93 months). Assessment included an Oxford shoulder score (OSS), patient satisfaction score and plain radiographs. RESULTS: The mean (range) OSS was 27 (7 to 48) and 64 of 73 (87.7%) patients were 'very satisfied' or 'satisfied' with their shoulder. Twenty-three (20.5%) shoulders had over 2 mm of glenoid erosion. Microfracture was performed in 43 of 112 shoulders (38.4%) and did not influence the progression of glenoid erosion. Further surgery was performed in 27 (24.1%) shoulders, including 15 revisions, eight arthrolyses and four subacromial decompressions. Revision to total shoulder arthroplasty was performed in 14 : 10 for glenoid erosion; one each for loosening, periprosthetic fracture, deep infection, and chronic pain. One was revised to reverse arthroplasty for chronic pain. CONCLUSIONS: CSRA performed in an independent centre reproduces the functional outcomes reported by the designer. Glenoid erosion, however, was a common occurrence and the main cause of revision - microfracture did not influence its progression.

Dynamic and static external fixation for distal radius fractures--a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: External fixation of distal radius fractures may be static (wrist-bridging) or dynamic (wrist-bridging with mobile hinge or non-bridging). The aim of this systematic review is to investigate the effectiveness of different methods of external fixation for unstable distal radius fractures. METHODS: A Medline database search was performed with strict eligibility criteria to obtain the highest quality evidence from meta-analyses, RCTs and comparative studies. Eligible studies were critically appraised using levels of evidence and RCTs were further appraised using a validated scoring tool. RESULTS: Fifty-four studies were identified of which eight were included. There were six RCTs and two retrospective comparative studies. Three RCTs compared non-bridging with static wrist-bridging fixation. Two RCTs compared dynamic wrist-bridging with static wrist-bridging fixation. One study compared dynamic wrist-bridging with non-bridging fixation. The RCTs varied in quality and scored between 12 and 23 out of a maximum of 33 points. The evidence suggests that there are no functional or radiological benefits for a dynamic wrist-bridging external fixator with a mobile hinge joint over a static wrist-bridging external fixator. The evidence also suggests that there are no benefits for non-bridging over static wrist-bridging external fixation in older patients but there do appear to be clear benefits both functionally and radiologically when considering patients of all ages. CONCLUSION: Dynamic and static external fixators both achieve good outcomes for patients with unstable distal radius fractures with comparable complication rates. Non-bridging fixation may result in better functional and radiological results than static wrist-bridging fixation when considering patients of all ages with earlier return of function. This benefit does not seem apparent when considering older patients. Although a benefit was not seen in this group, the technique may have practical advantages over wrist-bridging fixation by allowing increased mobility and use of the limb during the fixation period and enabling such patients to maintain their independence. Cost effective analyses are required to assess whether this would be an economically viable option for this group of patients.

Operative versus nonoperative treatment of acute undisplaced and minimally displaced scaphoid waist fractures--a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Undisplaced and minimally displaced scaphoid waist fractures can be managed either operatively (percutaneous or ORIF) or non-operatively with both methods obtaining high rates of fracture union and subsequent return of function. The aim of this systematic review is to identify and evaluate the best available evidence to determine whether they should be managed operatively or non-operatively. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A Medline and journal hand search was performed with strict eligibility criteria to obtain the highest quality evidence from meta-analyses, randomised controlled trials (RCT) and comparative studies. Included studies were critically appraised using levels of evidence and RCTs were further appraised using a scoring tool. RESULTS: The search found 112 studies, of which 12 met the eligibility criteria for inclusion. Three level 1 RCTs, three level 2 RCTs, two meta-analyses, one economic analysis, and three retrospective studies were critically appraised. The evidence suggests that percutaneous fixation may result in faster union rates by approximately 5 weeks and an earlier return to sport and work by approximately 7 weeks over cast treatment. This difference is not seen when comparing ORIF with cast treatment. Although cast treatment results in a higher non-union rate than ORIF, this needs to be balanced with the 30% minor complication rate. Manual workers require significantly longer time off work than non-manual workers regardless of the method of treatment, although they did return to work sooner after ORIF than after cast treatment. CONCLUSION: The majority of these injuries can be treated in a cast with good results. Operative treatment should be reserved for patients unable to work in a cast and considered for most manual workers and high-level athletes.