Aims. Arthroplasties of the elbow, including total elbow arthroplasty, radial head arthroplasty, distal humeral hemiarthroplasty, and radiocapitellar arthroplasty, are rarely undertaken. This scoping review aims to outline the current research in this area to inform the development of future research. Methods. A scoping review was undertaken adhering to the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines using Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, and trial registries, limited to studies published between 1 January 1990 and 7 February 2021. Endnote software was used for screening and selection, and included randomized trials, non-randomized controlled trials, prospective and retrospective cohort studies, case-control studies, analytical cross-sectional studies, and case series of ten or more patients reporting the clinical outcomes of elbow arthroplasty. The results are presented as the number of types of studies, sample size, length of follow-up, clinical outcome domains and instruments used, sources of funding, and a narrative review. Results. A total of 362 studies met the inclusion criteria. Most were of total elbow arthroplasty (246; 68%), followed by radial head arthroplasty (100; 28%), distal humeral hemiarthroplasty (11; 3%), and radiocapitellar arthroplasty (5; 1%). Most were retrospective (326; 90%) and observational (315; 87%). The median sample size for all types of implant across all studies was 36 (interquartile range (IQR) 21 to 75). The median length of follow-up for all studies was 56 months (IQR 36 to 81). A total of 583 unique outcome descriptors were used and were categorized into 18 domains. A total of 105 instruments were used to measure 39 outcomes. Conclusion. We found that most of the literature dealing with elbow arthroplasty consists of retrospective observational studies with small sample sizes and short follow-up. Many outcomes have been used with many different instruments for their measurement, indicating a need to define a core set of outcomes and instruments for future research in this area. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(10):1148–1155

Aims. The management of mid-shaft clavicle fractures (MSCFs) has evolved over the last three decades. Controversy exists over which specific fracture patterns to treat and when. This review aims to synthesize the literature in order to formulate an appropriate management algorithm for these injuries in both adolescents and adults. Methods. This is a systematic review of clinical studies comparing the outcomes of operative and nonoperative treatments for MSCFs in the past 15 years. The literature was searched using, PubMed, Google scholar, OVID Medline, and Embase. All databases were searched with identical search terms: mid-shaft clavicle fractures (± fixation) (± nonoperative). Results. Using the search criteria identified, 247 studies were deemed eligible. Following initial screening, 220 studies were excluded on the basis that they were duplicates and/or irrelevant to the research question being posed. A total of 27 full-text articles remained and were included in the final review. The majority of the meta-analyses draw the same conclusions, which are that operatively treated fractures have lower nonunion and malunion rates but that, in those fractures which unite (either operative or nonoperative), the functional outcomes are the same at six months. Conclusion. With regard to the adolescent population, the existing body of evidence is insufficient to support the use of routine operative management. Regarding adult fractures, the key to identifying patients who benefit from operative management lies in the identification of risk factors for nonunion. We present an algorithm that can be used to guide both the patient and the surgeon in a joint decision-making process, in order to optimize patient satisfaction and outcomes. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(11):850–858

Aims. Rates of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) continue to grow. Glenoid bone loss and deformity remains a technical challenge to the surgeon and may reduce improvements in patients’ outcomes. However, there is no consensus as to the optimal surgical technique to best reconstruct these patients’ anatomy. This review aims to compare the outcomes of glenoid bone grafting versus augmented glenoid prostheses in the management of glenoid bone loss in primary reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. Methods. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated study-level data in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. We performed searches of Medline (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), and PubMed from their dates of inception to January 2022. From included studies, we analyzed data for preoperative and postoperative range of motion (ROM), patient-reported functional outcomes, and complication rates. Results. A total of 13 studies (919 shoulders) were included in the analysis. The mean age of patients at initial evaluation was 72.2 years (42 to 87), with a mean follow-up time of 40.7 months (24 to 120). Nine studies with 292 rTSAs evaluated the use of bone graft and five studies with 627 rTSAs evaluated the use of augmented glenoid baseplates. One study was analyzed in both groups. Both techniques demonstrated improvement in patient-reported outcome measures and ROM assessment, with augmented prostheses outperforming bone grafting on improvements in the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Score. There was a higher complication rate (8.9% vs 3.5%; p < 0.001) and revision rate among the bone grafting group compared with the patients who were treated with augmented prostheses (2.4% vs 0.6%; p = 0.022). Conclusion. This review provides strong evidence that both bone graft and augmented glenoid baseplate techniques to address glenoid bone loss give excellent ROM and functional outcomes in primary rTSA. The use of augmented base plates may confer fewer complications and revisions. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(12):1334–1342

Aims. This systematic review places a recently completed multicentre randomized controlled trial (RCT), UK FROST, in the context of existing randomized evidence for the management of primary frozen shoulder. UK FROST compared the effectiveness of pre-specified physiotherapy techniques with a steroid injection (PTSI), manipulation under anaesthesia (MUA) with a steroid injection, and arthroscopic capsular release (ACR). This review updates a 2012 review focusing on the effectiveness of MUA, ACR, hydrodilatation, and PTSI. Methods. MEDLINE, Embase, PEDro, Science Citation Index, Clinicaltrials.gov, CENTRAL, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry were searched up to December 2018. Reference lists of included studies were screened. No language restrictions applied. Eligible studies were RCTs comparing the effectiveness of MUA, ACR, PTSI, and hydrodilatation against each other, or supportive care or no treatment, for the management of primary frozen shoulder. Results. Nine RCTs were included. The primary outcome of patient-reported shoulder function at long-term follow-up (> 6 months and ≤ 12 months) was reported for five treatment comparisons across four studies. Standardized mean differences (SMD) were: ACR versus MUA: 0.21 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.00 to 0.42), ACR versus supportive care: -0.13 (95% CI -1.10 to 0.83), and ACR versus PTSI: 0.33 (95% CI 0.07 to 0.59) and 0.25 (95% CI -0.34 to 0.85), all favouring ACR; MUA versus supportive care: 0 (95% CI -0.44 to 0.44) not favouring either; and MUA versus PTSI: 0.12 (95% CI -0.14 to 0.37) favouring MUA. None of these differences met the threshold of clinical significance agreed for the UK FROST and most confidence intervals included zero. Conclusion. The findings from a recent multicentre RCT provided the strongest evidence that, when compared with each other, neither PTSI, MUA, nor ACR are clinically superior. Evidence from smaller RCTs did not change this conclusion. The effectiveness of hydrodilatation based on four RCTs was inconclusive and there remains an evidence gap. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(9):773–784

Aims. The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of surgical repair to conservative treatment and subacromial decompression for the treatment of chronic/degenerative tears of the rotator cuff. Materials and Methods. PubMed, Cochrane database, and Medline were searched for randomized controlled trials published until March 2018. Included studies were assessed for methodological quality, and data were extracted for statistical analysis. The systematic review was conducted following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Results. Six studies were included. Surgical repair resulted in a statistically significantly better Constant–Murley Score (CMS) at one year compared with conservative treatment (mean difference 6.15; p = 0.002) and subacromial decompression alone (mean difference 5.81; p = 0.0004). In the conservatively treated group, 11.9% of patients eventually crossed over to surgical repair. Conclusion. The results of this review show that surgical repair results in significantly improved outcomes when compared with either conservative treatment or subacromial decompression alone for degenerative rotator cuff tears in older patients. However, the magnitude of the difference in outcomes between surgery and conservative treatment may be small and the ‘success rate’ of conservative treatment may be high, allowing surgeons to be judicious in choosing those patients who are most likely to benefit from surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:1100–1106

Aims

The aim of this study was to evaluate the differences in revision and complication rates, functional outcomes, and radiological outcomes between cemented and press-fit humeral stems in primary anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA).

Objectives

A variety of operative techniques have been described as under the term ‘Bristow-Latarjet’ procedure. This review aims to define the original procedure, and compare the variation in techniques described in the literature, assessing any effect on clinical outcomes.

The aim of this review is to address controversies in the management of dislocations of the acromioclavicular joint. Current evidence suggests that operative rather than non-operative treatment of Rockwood grade III dislocations results in better cosmetic and radiological results, similar functional outcomes and longer time off work. Early surgery results in better functional and radiological outcomes with a reduced risk of infection and loss of reduction compared with delayed surgery.

Surgical options include acromioclavicular fixation, coracoclavicular fixation and coracoclavicular ligament reconstruction. Although non-controlled studies report promising results for arthroscopic coracoclavicular fixation, there are no comparative studies with open techniques to draw conclusions about the best surgical approach. Non-rigid coracoclavicular fixation with tendon graft or synthetic materials, or rigid acromioclavicular fixation with a hook plate, is preferable to fixation with coracoclavicular screws owing to significant risks of loosening and breakage.

The evidence, although limited, also suggests that anatomical ligament reconstruction with autograft or certain synthetic grafts may have better outcomes than non-anatomical transfer of the coracoacromial ligament. It has been suggested that this is due to better restoration horizontal and vertical stability of the joint.

Despite the large number of recently published studies, there remains a lack of high-quality evidence, making it difficult to draw firm conclusions regarding these controversial issues.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:1595–1602.