Objectives. To date, no study has considered the impact of acromial morphology on shoulder range of movement (ROM). The purpose of our study was to evaluate the effects of lateralization of the centre of rotation (COR) and neck-shaft angle (NSA) on shoulder ROM after reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) in patients with different scapular morphologies. Methods. 3D computer models were constructed from CT scans of 12 patients with a critical shoulder angle (CSA) of 25°, 30°, 35°, and 40°. For each model, shoulder ROM was evaluated at a NSA of 135° and 145°, and lateralization of 0 mm, 5 mm, and 10 mm for seven standardized movements: glenohumeral abduction, adduction, forward flexion, extension, internal rotation with the arm at 90° of abduction, as well as external rotation with the arm at 10° and 90° of abduction. Results. CSA did not seem to influence ROM in any of the models, but greater lateralization achieved greater ROM for all movements in all configurations. Internal and external rotation at 90° of abduction were impossible in most configurations, except in models with a CSA of 25°. Conclusion. Postoperative ROM following RSA depends on multiple patient and surgical factors. This study, based on computer simulation, suggests that CSA has no influence on ROM after RSA, while lateralization increases ROM in all configurations. Furthermore, increasing subacromial space is important to grant sufficient rotation at 90° of abduction. In summary, increased lateralization of the COR and increased subacromial space improve ROM in all CSA configurations. Cite this article: A. Lädermann, E. Tay, P. Collin, S. Piotton, C-H Chiu, A. Michelet, C. Charbonnier. Effect of critical shoulder angle, glenoid lateralization, and humeral inclination on range of movement in reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Bone Joint Res 2019;8:378–386. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.88.BJR-2018-0293.R1

Aims. This study aimed to determine the minimal detectable change (MDC), minimal clinically important difference (MCID), and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) under distribution- and anchor-based methods for the Mayo Elbow Performance Index (MEPI) and range of movement (ROM) after open elbow arthrolysis (OEA). We also assessed the proportion of patients who achieved MCID and SCB; and identified the factors associated with achieving MCID. Methods. A cohort of 265 patients treated by OEA were included. The MEPI and ROM were evaluated at baseline and at two-year follow-up. Distribution-based MDC was calculated with confidence intervals (CIs) reflecting 80% (MDC 80), 90% (MDC 90), and 95% (MDC 95) certainty, and MCID with changes from baseline to follow-up. Anchor-based MCID (anchored to somewhat satisfied) and SCB (very satisfied) were calculated using a five-level Likert satisfaction scale. Multivariate logistic regression of factors affecting MCID achievement was performed. Results. The MDC increased substantially based on selected CIs (MDC 80, MDC 90, and MDC 95), ranging from 5.0 to 7.6 points for the MEPI, and from 8.2° to 12.5° for ROM. The MCID of the MEPI were 8.3 points under distribution-based and 12.2 points under anchor-based methods; distribution- and anchor-based MCID of ROM were 14.1° and 25.0°. The SCB of the MEPI and ROM were 17.3 points and 43.4°, respectively. The proportion of the patients who attained anchor-based MCID for the MEPI and ROM were 74.0% and 94.7%, respectively; furthermore, 64.2% and 86.8% attained SCB. Non-dominant arm (p = 0.022), higher preoperative MEPI rating (p < 0.001), and postoperative visual analogue scale pain score (p < 0.001) were independent predictors of not achieving MCID for the MEPI, while atraumatic causes (p = 0.040) and higher preoperative ROM (p = 0.005) were independent risk factors for ROM. Conclusion. In patients undergoing OEA, the MCID for the increased MEPI is 12.2 points and 25° increased ROM. The SCB is 17.3 points and 43.3°, respectively. Future studies using the MEPI and ROM to assess OEA outcomes should report not only statistical significance but also clinical importance. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(2):366–372

Aims. Frozen shoulder is a common, painful condition that results in impairment of function. Corticosteroid injections are commonly used for frozen shoulder and can be given as glenohumeral joint (GHJ) injection or suprascapular nerve block (SSNB). Both injection types have been shown to significantly improve shoulder pain and range of motion. It is not currently known which is superior in terms of relieving patients’ symptoms. This is the protocol for a randomized clinical trial to investigate the clinical effectiveness of corticosteroid injection given as either a GHJ injection or SSNB. Methods. The Therapeutic Injections For Frozen Shoulder (TIFFS) study is a single centre, parallel, two-arm, randomized clinical trial. Participants will be allocated on a 1:1 basis to either a GHJ corticosteroid injection or SSNB. Participants in both trial arms will then receive physiotherapy as normal for frozen shoulder. The primary analysis will compare the Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS) at three months after injection. Secondary outcomes include OSS at six and 12 months, range of shoulder movement at three months, and Numeric Pain Rating Scale, abbreviated Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand score, and EuroQol five-level five-dimension health index at three months, six months, and one year after injection. A minimum of 40 patients will be recruited to obtain 80% power to detect a minimally important difference of ten points on the OSS between the groups at three months after injection. The study is registered under ClinicalTrials.gov with the identifier NCT04965376. Conclusion. The results of this trial will demonstrate if there is a difference in shoulder pain and function after GHJ injection or SSNB in patients with frozen shoulder. This will help provide effective treatment to patients with frozen shoulder. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(3):205–209

Aims. The aim of this study is to report the results of a case series of olecranon fractures and olecranon osteotomies treated with two bicortical screws. Methods. Data was collected retrospectively for all olecranon fractures and osteotomies fixed with two bicortical screws between January 2008 and December 2019 at our institution. The following outcome measures were assessed; re-operation, complications, radiological loss of reduction, and elbow range of flexion-extension. Results. Bicortical screw fixation was used to treat 17 olecranon fractures and ten osteotomies. The mean age of patients being treated for olecranon fracture and osteotomy were 48.6 years and 52.7 years respectively. Overall, 18% of olecranon fractures were classified as Mayo type I, 71% type II, and 12% type III. No cases of fracture or osteotomy required operative re-intervention. There were two cases of loss of fracture reduction which occurred in female patients ≥ 75 years of age with osteoporotic bone. In both cases, active extension and a functional range of movement was maintained and so the loss of reduction was managed non-operatively. For the fracture fixation cohort, at final follow-up mean elbow extension and flexion were -5. °. ± 5. °. and 136. °. ± 7. °. , with a mean arc of motion of 131. °. ± 11. °. . Conclusion. This series has shown that patients regain near full range of elbow flexion-extension and complication rates are low following bicortical screw fixation of olecranon fractures and osteotomy. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-7:376–382

Aims. The aim of this study was to report the outcomes of different treatment options for glenoid loosening following reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) at a minimum follow-up of two years. Patients and Methods. We retrospectively studied the records of 79 patients (19 men, 60 women; 84 shoulders) aged 70.4 years (21 to 87) treated for aseptic loosening of the glenosphere following RSA. Clinical evaluation included pre- and post-treatment active anterior elevation (AAE), external rotation, and Constant score. Results. From the original cohort, 29 shoulders (35%) were treated conservatively, 27 shoulders (32%) were revised by revision of the glenosphere, and 28 shoulders (33%) were converted to hemiarthroplasty. At last follow-up, conservative treatment and glenoid revision significantly improved AAE, total Constant score, and pain, while hemiarthroplasty did not improve range of movement or clinical scores. Multivariable analysis confirmed that conservative treatment and glenoid revision achieved similar improvements in pain (glenoid revision vs conservative, beta 0.44; p = 0.834) but that outcomes were significantly worse following hemiarthroplasty (beta -5.00; p = 0.029). Conclusion. When possible, glenoid loosening after RSA should first be treated conservatively, then by glenosphere revision if necessary, and last by salvage hemiarthroplasty. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:461–469

Aims

To achieve expert clinical consensus in the delivery of hydrodilatation for the treatment of primary frozen shoulder to inform clinical practice and the design of an intervention for evaluation.

Post-traumatic elbow stiffness is a disabling condition that remains challenging for upper limb surgeons. Open elbow arthrolysis is commonly used for the treatment of stiff elbow when conservative therapy has failed. Multiple questions commonly arise from surgeons who deal with this disease. These include whether the patient has post-traumatic stiff elbow, how to evaluate the problem, when surgery is appropriate, how to perform an excellent arthrolysis, what the optimal postoperative rehabilitation is, and how to prevent or reduce the incidence of complications. Following these questions, this review provides an update and overview of post-traumatic elbow stiffness with respect to the diagnosis, preoperative evaluation, arthrolysis strategies, postoperative rehabilitation, and prevention of complications, aiming to provide a complete diagnosis and treatment path.

Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-9:576–584.

Aims

The aim of this study was to report the mid-term clinical outcome of cemented unlinked J-alumina ceramic elbow (JACE) arthroplasties when used in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Aims

Controversy about the use of an anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA) in young arthritic patients relates to which is the ideal form of fixation for the glenoid component: cemented or cementless. This study aimed to evaluate implant survival of aTSA when used in patients aged < 60 years with primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis (OA), and to compare the survival of cemented all-polyethylene and cementless metal-backed glenoid components.

This pilot study reports the clinical outcomes of a combination of partial subscapularis tendon transfer and small-head hemiarthroplasty in patients with rotatator cuff arthropathy. A total of 30 patients (30 shoulders; eight men and 22 women) with a mean age of 74 years (55 to 84) were assessed at a mean follow-up of 31 months (24 to 60). The inclusion criteria were painful cuff tear arthropathy with normal deltoid function and a non-degenerative subscapularis muscle and tendon and a preserved teres minor.

Outcome was assessed using the University of California Los Angeles score, the Japanese Orthopaedic Association score, and the Oxford Shoulder Score. Radiographic measurements included the centre of rotation distance and the length of the deltoid.

All clinical scores were significantly improved post-operatively. The active flexion and external rotation improved significantly at the most recent follow-up (p < 0.035). Although the mean centre of rotation distance changed significantly (p < 0.001), the mean length of the deltoid did not change significantly from the pre-operative value (p = 0.29). The change in the length of the deltoid with < 100° flexion was significantly less than that with > 100° (p < 0.001).

Progressive erosion of the glenoid was seen in four patients. No patient required revision or further surgery.

A combination of partial subscapularis tendon transfer and small-head hemiarthroplasty effectively restored function and relieved pain in patients with rotator cuff arthropathy.

Cite this article: 2015;97-B:1090–5.