Aims. The current evidence comparing the two most common approaches for reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA), the deltopectoral and anterosuperior approach, is limited. This study aims to compare the rate of loosening, instability, and implant survival between the two approaches for rTSA using data from the Dutch National Arthroplasty Registry with a minimum follow-up of five years. Methods. All patients in the registry who underwent a primary rTSA between January 2014 and December 2016 using an anterosuperior or deltopectoral approach were included, with a minimum follow-up of five years. Cox and logistic regression models were used to assess the association between the approach and the implant survival, instability, and glenoid loosening, independent of confounders. Results. In total, 3,902 rTSAs were included. A deltopectoral approach was used in 54% (2,099/3,902) and an anterosuperior approach in 46% (1,803/3,902). Overall, the mean age in the cohort was 75 years (50 to 96) and the most common indication for rTSA was cuff tear arthropathy (35%; n = 1,375), followed by osteoarthritis (29%; n = 1,126), acute fracture (13%; n = 517), post-traumatic sequelae (10%; n = 398), and an irreparable cuff rupture (5%; n = 199). The two high-volume centres performed the anterosuperior approach more often compared to the medium- and low-volume centres (p < 0.001). Of the 3,902 rTSAs, 187 were revised (5%), resulting in a five-year survival of 95.4% (95% confidence interval 94.7 to 96.0; 3,137 at risk). The most common reason for revision was a periprosthetic joint infection (35%; n = 65), followed by instability (25%; n = 46) and loosening (25%; n = 46). After correcting for relevant confounders, the revision rate for glenoid loosening, instability, and the overall implant survival did not differ significantly between the two approaches (p = 0.494, p = 0.826, and p = 0.101, respectively). Conclusion. The surgical approach used for rTSA did not influence the overall implant survival or the revision rate for instability or glenoid loosening. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(9):1000–1006

Treatment of proximal humerus fractures (PHF) is controversial in many respects, including the choice of surgical approach for fixation when using a locking plate. The classic deltopectoral (DP) approach is believed to increase the risk of avascular necrosis while making access to the greater tuberosity more difficult. The deltoid split (DS) approach was developed to respect minimally invasive surgery principles. The purpose of the present study (NCT-00612391) was to compare outcomes of PHF treated by DP and DS approaches in terms of function (Q-DASH, Constant score), quality of life (SF12), and complications in a prospective randomized multicenter study. From 2007 to 2016, all patients meeting the inclusion/exclusion criteria in two University Trauma Centers were invited to participate in the study. Inclusion criteria were: PHF Neer II/III, isolated injury, skeletal maturity, speaking French or English, available for follow-up (FU), and ability to fill questionnaires. Exclusion criteria: Pre-existing pathology to the limb, patient-refusing or too ill to undergo surgery, patient needing another type of treatment (nail, arthroplasty), axillary nerve impairment, open fracture. After consent, patients were randomized to one of the two treatments using the dark envelope method. Pre-injury status was documented by questionnaires (SF12, Q-DASH, Constant score). Range of motion was assessed. Patients were followed at two weeks, six weeks, 3-6-12-18-24 months. Power calculation was done with primary outcome: Q-DASH. A total of 92 patients were randomised in the study and 83 patients were followed for a minimum of 12 months. The mean age was 62 y.o. (+- 14 y.) and 77% were females. There was an equivalent number of Neer II and III, 53% and 47% respectively. Mean FU was of 26 months. Forty-four patients were randomized to the DS and 39 to the DP approach. Groups were equivalent in terms of age, gender, BMI, severity of fracture and pre-injury scores. All clinical outcome measures were in favor of the deltopectoral approach. Primary outcome measure, Q-DASH, was better statistically and clinically in the DP group (12 vs 26, p=0,003). Patients with DP had less pain and better quality of life scores than with DS (VAS 1/10 vs 2/10 p=0,019 and SF12M 56 vs 51, p=0,049, respectively). Constant-Murley score was higher in the DP group (73 vs 60, p=0,014). However, active external rotation was better with the DS approach (45° vs 35°). There were more complications in DS patients, with four screw cut-outs vs zero, four avascular necrosis vs one, and five reoperations vs two. Calcar screws were used for a majority of DP fixations (57%) vs a minority of DS (27%) (p=0,012). The primary hypothesis on the superiority of the deltoid split incision was rebutted. Functional outcome, quality of life, pain, and risk of complication favoured the classic deltopectoral approach. Active external rotation was the only outcome better with DS. We believe that the difficulty of adding calcar screws and intramuscular dissection in the DS approach were partly responsible for this difference. The DP approach should be used during Neer II and III PHF fixation

Proximal humeral fractures are common fractures that may lead to severe functional disability. In open reduction and internal fixation of these fractures deltopectoral approach is pereferred by many surgeons being an internervous plane and because of familiarity. However when this aprroach is used extensive soft tissue dissection is inevitable and control of the commonly displaced tuberculum majus fragment which is displaced posterolateraly is difficult. In this prospective study we compared deltopectoral and lateral deltoid splitting approach by using the same fixation material. Between October 2005 and March 2007 42 patients were included in the study group. In Group A a lateral deltoid split approch and in Group B deltopectoral approach was used. Group A consisted of 22 cases; mean age 60.95 (26–90 years old); 12 female and 10 male, Group B 20 cases; mean age 56.9 (24–86 years old); 13 female, 7 male. Philos locking plate fixation (Synthes) was used in every case. When deltoid split approach was used axillary nerve was explored and protected, a C-arm was used in every case. Functional results and compications were compared at the follow up visits. When radiological results were compared the reduction of head and tubercular fragments were better in deltoid splitting approach. The Constant score was better in Group A at an earlier time period 68.9 vs 58.4 (p< 0.01). At the 6th month follow up the difference between Constant scores was not significant, 85.9 vs 85.2 (p> 0.05). Axillary nerve lesion due to lateral deltoid split exposure was not observed in any of the cases. Lateral deltoid split exposure with identification and protection of the axillary nerve facilitates 270 degrees control of the head and tubercular fragments in AO/ASIF type B and C fractures. Additional fixation of tubercular fragments by sutures passed through cuff tendons and fixed to the plate helps to maintain the reduction. Compared to double incision minimal invasive approach a shother plate is used without any inadvertant risk to the axillary nerve. Better Constant scores are achieved at an earlier time. We recommend this technique in AO/ASIF type B and C fractures

Aims. Despite the expansion of arthroscopic surgery of the shoulder, the open deltopectoral approach is increasingly used for the fixation of fractures and arthroplasty of the shoulder. The anatomy of the terminal branches of the posterior circumflex humeral artery (PCHA) has not been described before. We undertook an investigation to correct this omission. Patients and Methods. The vascular anatomy encountered during 100 consecutive elective deltopectoral approaches was recorded, and the common variants of the terminal branches of the PCHA are described. Results. In total, 92 patients (92%) had a terminal branch that crossed the space between the deltoid and the proximal humerus and which was therefore vulnerable to tearing or avulsion during the insertion of the blade of a retractor during the deltopectoral approach to the shoulder. In 75 patients (75%) there was a single vessel, in 16 (16%) a double vessel and in one a triple vessel. Conclusion. The relationship of these vessels to the landmark of the tendon of the insertion of pectoralis major into the proximal humerus is described. Damage to these previously undocumented branches can cause persistent bleeding leading to prolonged surgery and post-operative haematoma and infection, as well as poor visualisation during the procedure. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:1395–8

The October 2023 Shoulder & Elbow Roundup. 360. looks at: Arthroscopic capsular shift surgery in patients with atraumatic shoulder joint instability: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial; Superior capsular reconstruction partially restores native glenohumeral loads in a dynamic model; Gene expression in glenoid articular cartilage varies in acute instability, chronic instability, and osteoarthritis; Intra-articular injection versus interscalene brachial plexus block for acute-phase postoperative pain management after arthroscopic shoulder surgery; Level of pain catastrophizing rehab in subacromial impingement: secondary analyses from a pragmatic randomized controlled trial (the SExSI Trial); Anterosuperior versus deltopectoral approach for primary reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a study of 3,902 cases from the Dutch National Arthroplasty Registry with a minimum follow-up of five years; Assessment of progression and clinical relevance of stress-shielding around press-fit radial head arthroplasty: a comparative study of two implants; A number of modifiable and non-modifiable factors increase the risk for elbow medial ulnar collateral ligament injury in baseball players: a systematic review

Aim. Clavicular osteotomy was described as an adjunct to deltopectoral approach for improved exposure of the glenohumeral joint. This study aims to present contemporary outcomes and complications associated with the routine use of clavicular osteotomy by a single surgeon in a regional setting within New Zealand. Methods. A retrospective case series of patients who have undergone any shoulder arthroplasty for any indication between March 2017 to August 2022. This time period includes all patients who had clavicular osteotomy(OS) and patients over an equal time period prior to the routine use of osteotomy as a reference group (N-OS). Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS) and a Simple Shoulder Test (STT) were used to assess functional outcomes and were compared with the reported literature. Operative times and Complications were reviewed. Results. 66 patients were included in the study. 33 patients in the OS group and 33 in the N-OS group. No difference in age, sex, indications for operative intervention and the surgery provided was identified. No significant difference in operative time between groups (N-OS 121 minutes; OS 128 minutes). No clinically significant difference was identified in the OSS (N-OS; mean 38 vs OS 39) or the STT (N-OS 8.3 vs OS 9). The outcomes scores of both groups are in keeping with published literature. Two post operative clavicle fractures, one prominent surgical knot occurred in the OS that required further surgical intervention. Two cases of localized pain over the clavicle and one case of the prominent lateral clavicle were reported in the OS group. Two cases of localized pain over clavicle reported in the N-OS group. Conclusion. Use of clavicular osteotomy is not associated with inferior patient reported. The osteotomy introduces specific risks, however, the study provides evidence that these complications are infrequent and avoidable. Surgeons should feel confident in using this adjunct when exposure to the shoulder is difficult

Despite the expansion of arthroscopic surgery of the shoulder, the open deltopectoral approach to the shoulder is still frequently used, for example in fracture fixation and shoulder replacement. However, it is sometimes accompanied by unexpected bleeding. The cephalic vein is the landmark for the deltopectoral interval, yet its intimate relationship with the deltoid artery, and the anatomical variations in that structure, have not previously been documented. In this study the vascular anatomy encountered during 100 consecutive elective deltopectoral approaches was recorded and the common variants described. Two common variants of the deltoid artery were encountered. In type I (71%) it crosses the interval and tunnels into the deltoid muscle without encountering the cephalic vein. However, in type II (21%) it crosses the interval, reaches the cephalic vein and then runs down, medial to and behind it, giving off several small arterial branches that return back across the interval to the pectoralis major. Several minor variations were also seen (8%). These variations in the deltoid artery have not previously been described and may lead to confusion and unexpected bleeding during this standard anterior surgical approach to the shoulder. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:657–9

The standard approach is through the deltopectoral interval. Among patients with prior incisions, one makes every effort to either utilise the old incision or to incorporate it into a longer incision that will allow one to approach the deltopectoral interval and retract the deltoid laterally. The deltopectoral interval is most easily developed just distal to the clavicle, where there is a natural infraclavicular triangle of fat that separates the deltoid and pectoralis major muscles even in very scarred or stiff shoulders. Typically, the deltoid is retracted laterally leaving the cephalic vein on the medial aspect of the exposure. The anterior border of the deltoid is mobilised from the clavicle to its insertion on the humerus. The anterior portion of the deltoid insertion together with the more distal periosteum of the humerus may be elevated slightly. The next step is to identify the plane between the conjoined tendon group and the subscapularis muscle. Dissection in this area must be done very carefully due to the close proximity of the neurovascular group, the axillary nerve, and the musculocutaneous nerve. Scar is then released from around the base of the coracoid. The subacromial space is freed of scar and the shoulder is examined for range of motion. Particularly among patients with prior rotator cuff surgery, there may be severe scarring in the subacromial space. Internal rotation of the arm with dissection between the remaining rotator cuff and deltoid is critical to develop this plane. If external rotation is less than 30 degrees, one can consider incising the subscapularis off bone rather than through its tendinous substance. For every 1 cm that the subscapularis is advanced medially, one gains approximately 20 to 30 degrees of external rotation. The rotator interval between the subscapularis and supraspinatus is then incised. This release is then continued inferiorly to incise the inferior shoulder capsule from the neck of the humerus. This is performed by proceeding from anterior to posterior with progressive external rotation of the humerus staying directly on the bone with electrocautery and great care to protect the axillary nerve. The key for glenoid exposure as well as improvement in motion is deltoid mobilization, a large inferior capsular release, aggressive humeral head cut and osteophyte removal

Fractures and nonunions of the proximal humerus are increasingly treated by open reduction and internal fixation. The extended deltopectoral approach remains the most widely used for this purpose. However, it provides only limited exposure of the lateral and posterior aspects of the proximal humerus. We have previously described the alternative extended deltoid-splitting approach. In this paper we outline variations and extensions of this technique that we have developed in the management of further patients with these fractures

The deltopectoral approach is a common approach for Shoulder joint replacements where a normal subscapularis tendon is divided. Despite meticulous attention to the subscapular repair, suboptimal return of function was found on clinical examination in 92% of patients (Miller S L: Journal of Shoulder & Elbow Surgery. 12(1): 29–34, February 2003). Therefore the aim was to study the integrity of the Subscapularis tendon in patients with Shoulder joint Replacements both clinical and ultrasound examination. Methods: A cohort of 25 subjects who had undergone Copeland Shoulder replacements through deltopectoral approach were included. All patients had same technique of tendon-to-tendon repair and postoperative rehabilitation. After ethics committee approval subjects were evaluated prospectively with Lift off test, Belly press test and the Constant score. Average follow-up was 29.6 months. An experienced Radiologist performed the Ultrasound examination. Results: Ultrasound examination showed 8 % (2 of 25) had full thickness rupture of subscapularis with 44% (11 of 25) showed mild to moderate atrophy of subscapularis muscle and 12%(3 of 25) severe atrophy. 20%(5 of 25) had Lift off test and Belly press test positive. 40%(10 of 25) had either or both of these tests positive. 60%(15 of 25) had clinical or radiological evidence of reduced function (Fisher exact test, P < 0.01). Constant score are 37.5 with full thickness tears compared to 59.4 with intact subsapularis tendon. Conclusion: Subscapularis tendon function following shoulder replacement had received poor attention. It is deficient in over 60% of patients with joint replacement through Deltopectoral approach with tendon-to-tendon repair. We therefore conclude for this study that alternative techniques of subscapularis tendon repair or alternative approaches to the shoulder joint need to be considered to improve the functional outcome in these patients

Revision of the humeral component in shoulder arthroplasty is frequently necessary during revision surgery. Newer devices have been developed that allow for easy extraction or conversion at the time of revision preserving bone stock and simplifying the procedure. However, early generation anatomic and reverse humeral stems were frequently cemented into place. Monoblock or fixed collar stems make accessing the canal from above challenging. The cortex of the Humerus is far thinner than the femur and stress shielding has commonly led to osteopenia. Many stem designs have fins that project into the tuberosities putting them at risk for fracture on extraction. Extraction starts with an extended deltopectoral incision from the clavicle to the deltoid insertion. The proximal humerus needs to be freed from adhesions of the deltoid and conjoined tendon. The deltopectoral interval is fully developed. Complete subscapularis and anterior capsular release to the level of the latissimus tendon permits full exposure of the humeral head. After head removal the stem can be assessed for loosening and signs of periprosthetic joint infection. The proximal bone around the fin of the implant should be removed from the canal. If possible, the manufacturer's extractor should be utilised. If not, then a blunt impactor can be placed from below against the collar of the stem to assist in extraction. With luck the stem can be extracted from the cement mantle. If there is no concern for infection, the cement-in-cement technique can be used for revision. Otherwise, attempts should be made to extract all the cement and cement restrictor, if present. The small cement removal tools from the hip set can be used and specialised shoulder tools are available. An ultrasound cement removal device can be very helpful. The surgeon must be particularly careful to avoid perforation of the humeral cortex. This is especially important when near the radial nerve as injury can occur. When a well-fixed stem is encountered, an osteotomy of the proximal humerus is necessary. The surgeon can utilise a linear cut with an oscillating saw along the bicipital groove for the length of the implant. An osteotome is used to crack the cement mantle allowing stem extraction. Alternatively, a window can be created to offer additional access to the cement mantle. In the event the surgeon has required an osteotomy or window, cerclage wires, cables or suture will be needed and when the bone is potentially compromised, allograft bone graft struts (tibial shaft) are used for additional support. Care is needed when passing cerclage wires to avoid injury to the radial nerve which is adjacent to the deltoid insertion. If infection is suspected or confirmed an ALBC spacer is placed. When single stage revision is planned both cemented and uncemented stem options are available. Cement placed around the humeral stem has been suggested to decrease infection incidence. Revision of cemented humeral stems is a continued challenge in revision shoulder surgery. Newer systems and reverse total shoulder options have improved the surgeon's ability to achieve good outcomes when revising prior shoulder arthroplasty

We treated surgically 16 shoulders with an isolated traumatic rupture of the subscapularis tendon over a six-year period. Nine patients had a total and seven a partial tear of the subscapularis tendon. Repair was undertaken through a small deltopectoral groove approach. The mean Constant score improved in total tears from 38.7 to 89.3 points (p = 0.003) and in partial tears from 50.7 to 87.9 points (p = 0.008). The total tears were significantly more improved by surgery than the partial tears (p = 0.001). The delay between trauma and surgery was inversely proportional to the improvement in the Constant score suggesting that early diagnosis and surgical repair improves outcome

Rotator cuff pathology is the main cause of shoulder pain and dysfunction in older adults. When a rotator cuff tear involves the subscapularis tendon, the symptoms are usually more severe and the prognosis after surgery must be guarded. Isolated subscapularis tears represent 18% of all rotator cuff tears and arthroscopic repair is a good alternative primary treatment. However, when the tendon is deemed irreparable, tendon transfers are the only option for younger or high-functioning patients. The aim of this review is to describe the indications, biomechanical principles, and outcomes which have been reported for tendon transfers, which are available for the treatment of irreparable subscapularis tears.

The best tendon to be transferred remains controversial. Pectoralis major transfer was described more than 30 years ago to treat patients with failed surgery for instability of the shoulder. It has subsequently been used extensively to manage irreparable subscapularis tendon tears in many clinical settings. Although pectoralis major reproduces the position and orientation of the subscapularis in the coronal plane, its position in the axial plane – anterior to the rib cage – is clearly different and does not allow it to function as an ideal transfer. Consistent relief of pain and moderate recovery of strength and function have been reported following the use of this transfer. In an attempt to improve on these results, latissimus dorsi tendon transfer was proposed as an alternative and the technique has evolved from an open to an arthroscopic procedure. Satisfactory relief of pain and improvements in functional shoulder scores have recently been reported following its use. Both pectoralis minor and upper trapezius transfers have also been used in these patients, but the outcomes that have been reported do not support their widespread use.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(9):970–977.

Purpose: The purpose of this multicentric study was to report results obtained with the Aequalis system using the simple humeral or total prosthesis, at at least two years follow-up in patients with shoulder joint degeneration and non-repairable rotator cuff tears. Material and methods: Sixty-eight Aequalis arthroplasties were performed between 1992 and 1998. Outcome was assessed on the basis of the Constant score and radiological findings. Female gender predominated (78%) in this series with a mean age of 72 years. There were 62 simple humeral implantations and six total shoulder arthroplasties. The deltopectoral approach was used in 63 cases and the superior approach in five. All stems and sockets were cemented. There were no neurological or infectious complications. Results: Two humeral stem implants were failures and required revision with a Grammont prosthesis. There was also one reoperation for arthrolysis with preservation of the implant; the outcome was fair. Functional outcome: Sixty-six patients were reviewed with a mean follow-up of 45 months. All implantations except one were performed to achieve pain relief. The absolute Constant score improved by 20 points (from 25 to 46) with a 7-point gain for pain (3 to 10), a 20° gain for active elevation, an 18° gain for external rotation, and a 0.4 point gain for force. Pain relief was greater with total prostheses. Only five patients stated they were dissatis-fied with the outcome despite the fact that 18 reported significant persistent pain. The Constant score was analysed as a function of follow-up, size of the humeral head, and preoperative morphology of the glenoid surface. Radiological outcome: Certain loosening was recognised for one glenoid and one humeral stem. Among 52 shoulders with strictly identical radiological results, 33 exhibited deterioration either for the vault or the glenoid or both, with no effect on the Constant score. Discussion: In this indication the Adqualis prosthesis is implanted to achieve a “limited” objective: pain relief. The deltopectoral approach is preferable in order to preserve elements inhibiting superior migration of the humerus (in a parallel study, the absence of these elements explains the poor outcome observed in 3 out of 9 patients). Unlike other series, the present series exhibited a significant effect of a type E2 biconcave glenoid surface. The pain score was better with total shoulder prostheses than with humeral stems alone and four of the six glenoid sockets remained perfectly fixed. The long-term outcome of these glenoid surfaces remains unknown so it would be inappropriate to advise systematic use. Clinical outcome did not show any deterioration over time despite deterioration of the vault, the glenoid, or both. Indications for non-constrained pros-theses should however be retained with caution due to open questions concerning long-term outcome, particularly for shoulders which have already been operated on or with type E2 glenoids. Considering these reservations, the Aequalis prosthesis has reached, at nearly five years follow-up, the assigned objectives: significant pain relief, satisfactory overall shoulder function

Aims

Metal and ceramic humeral head bearing surfaces are available choices in anatomical shoulder arthroplasties. Wear studies have shown superior performance of ceramic heads, however comparison of clinical outcomes according to bearing surface in total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) and hemiarthroplasty (HA) is limited. This study aimed to compare the rates of revision and reoperation following metal and ceramic humeral head TSA and HA using data from the National Joint Registry (NJR), which collects data from England, Wales, Northern Ireland, Isle of Man and the States of Guernsey.

Aims

The aim of this study is to evaluate the change in incidence rate of shoulder arthroplasty, indications, and surgeon volume trends associated with these procedures between January 2003 and April 2021 in the province of Nova Scotia, Canada.

Aims

Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) can be used in complex cases when the glenoid requires reconstruction. In this study, a baseplate with composite bone autograft and a central trabecular titanium peg was implanted, and its migration was assessed for two years postoperatively using radiostereometric analysis (RSA).

The August 2023 Shoulder & Elbow Roundup360 looks at: Motor control or strengthening exercises for rotator cuff-related shoulder pain? A multi-arm randomized controlled trial; Does the choice of antibiotic prophylaxis influence reoperation rate in primary shoulder arthroplasty?; Common shoulder injuries in sport: grading the evidence; The use of medial support screw was associated with axillary nerve injury after plate fixation of proximal humeral fracture using a minimally invasive deltoid-splitting approach; MRI predicts outcomes of conservative treatment in patients with lateral epicondylitis; Association between surgeon volume and patient outcomes after elective shoulder arthroplasty; Arthroscopic decompression of calcific tendinitis without cuff repair; Functional outcome after nonoperative management of minimally displaced greater tuberosity fractures and predictors of poorer patient experience.

Anatomic and accurate placement of components is a primary goal in all arthroplasty procedures. Unique to total shoulder arthroplasty, challenging glenoid exposure and osteoarthritic glenoid deformity offer significant challenges and impediments to this goal. Despite thorough pre-operative planning strategies and contemporary cannulated pin-based shoulder systems, it is often times still difficult to accurately aim the guide pin to the medial border of the scapula when the deformity is substantial or exposure is difficult. Even small errors in guide pin position can result in problems with final component version, inclination and glenoid vault perforation. In addition, a malpositioned glenoid component has been shown to have a negative impact on implant longevity and clinical performance. Image-based patient specific instrumentation has been available in the lower extremity for nearly a decade with reliable results. The application of similar technology in the shoulder has demonstrated reliable positioning of the guide pin to a pre-operative plan with subsequent accurate placement of the glenoid component. This surgical demonstration will feature one of the currently available CT-based patient specific glenoid guides using a standard deltopectoral approach