Bone defects are frequently observed in anterior shoulder instability. Over the last decade, knowledge of the association of bone loss with increased failure rates of soft-tissue repair has shifted the surgical management of chronic shoulder instability. On the glenoid side, there is no controversy about the critical glenoid bone loss being 20%. However, poor outcomes have been described even with a subcritical glenoid bone defect as low as 13.5%. On the humeral side, the Hill-Sachs lesion should be evaluated concomitantly with the glenoid defect as the two sides of the same bipolar lesion which interact in the instability process, as described by the glenoid track concept. We advocate adding remplissage to every Bankart repair in patients with a Hill-Sachs lesion, regardless of the glenoid bone loss. When critical or subcritical glenoid bone loss occurs in active patients (> 15%) or bipolar off-track lesions, we should consider anterior glenoid bone reconstructions. The techniques have evolved significantly over the last two decades, moving from open procedures to arthroscopic, and from screw fixation to metal-free fixation. The new arthroscopic techniques of glenoid bone reconstruction procedures allow precise positioning of the graft, identification, and treatment of concomitant injuries with low morbidity and faster recovery. Given the problems associated with bone resorption and metal hardware protrusion, the new metal-free techniques for Latarjet or free bone block procedures seem a good solution to avoid these complications, although no long-term data are yet available.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(10):1100–1110.

Aims. Distal third clavicle (DTC) fractures are increasing in incidence. Due to their instability and nonunion risk, they prove difficult to treat. Several different operative options for DTC fixation are reported but current evidence suggests variability in operative fixation. Given the lack of consensus, our objective was to determine the current epidemiological trends in DTC as well as their management within the UK. Methods. A multicentre retrospective cohort collaborative study was conducted. All patients over the age of 18 with an isolated DTC fracture in 2019 were included. Demographic variables were recorded: age; sex; side of injury; mechanism of injury; modified Neer classification grading; operative technique; fracture union; complications; and subsequent procedures. Baseline characteristics were described for demographic variables. Categorical variables were expressed as frequencies and percentages. Results. A total of 859 patients from 18 different NHS trusts (15 trauma units and three major trauma centres) were included. The mean age was 57 years (18 to 99). Overall, 56% of patients (n = 481) were male. The most common mechanisms of injury were simple fall (57%; n = 487) and high-energy fall (29%; n = 248); 87% (n = 748) were treated conservatively and 54% (n = 463) were Neer type I fractures. Overall, 32% of fractures (n = 275) were type II (22% type IIa (n = 192); 10% type IIb (n = 83)). With regards to operative management, 89% of patients (n = 748) who underwent an operation were under the age of 60. The main fixation methods were: hook plate (n = 47); locking plate (n = 34); tightrope (n = 5); and locking plate and tight rope (n = 7). Conclusion. Our study is the largest epidemiological review of DTC fractures in the UK. It is also the first to review the practice of DTC fixation. Most fractures are being treated nonoperatively. However, younger patients, suffering a higher-energy mechanism of injury, are more likely to undergo surgery. Hook plates are the predominantly used fixation method followed by locking plate. The literature is sparse on the best method of fixation for optimal outcomes for these patients. To answer this, a pragmatic RCT to determine optimal fixation method is required. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(12):953–959

Background

Due to the overwhelming demand for trauma services, resulting from increasing emergency department attendances over the past decade, virtual fracture clinics (VFCs) have become the fashion to keep up with the demand and help comply with the BOA Standards for Trauma and Orthopaedics (BOAST) guidelines. In this article, we perform a systematic review asking, “How useful are VFCs?”, and what injuries and conditions can be treated safely and effectively, to help decrease patient face to face consultations. Our primary outcomes were patient satisfaction, clinical efficiency and cost analysis, and clinical outcomes.