Aims. It is important to understand the rate of complications associated with the increasing burden of revision shoulder arthroplasty. Currently, this has not been well quantified. This review aims to address that deficiency with a focus on complication and reoperation rates, shoulder outcome scores, and comparison of anatomical and reverse prostheses when used in revision surgery. Methods. A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) systematic review was performed to identify clinical data for patients undergoing revision shoulder arthroplasty. Data were extracted from the literature and pooled for analysis. Complication and reoperation rates were analyzed using a meta-analysis of proportion, and continuous variables underwent comparative subgroup analysis. Results. A total of 112 studies (5,379 shoulders) were eligible for inclusion, although complete clinical data was not ubiquitous. Indications for revision included component loosening 20% (601/3,041), instability 19% (577/3,041), rotator cuff failure 17% (528/3,041), and infection 16% (490/3,041). Intraoperative complication and postoperative complication and reoperation rates were 8% (230/2,915), 22% (825/3,843), and 13% (584/3,843) respectively. Intraoperative and postoperative complications included iatrogenic humeral fractures (91/230, 40%) and instability (215/825, 26%). Revision to reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA), rather than revision to anatomical TSA from any index prosthesis, resulted in lower complication rates and superior Constant scores, although there was no difference in American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores. Conclusion. Satisfactory improvement in patient-reported outcome measures are reported following revision shoulder arthroplasty; however, revision surgery is associated with high complication rates and better outcomes may be evident following revision to reverse TSA. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(8):618–630

Aims

Recurrent dislocation is both a cause and consequence of glenoid bone loss, and the extent of the bony defect is an indicator guiding operative intervention. Literature suggests that loss greater than 25% requires glenoid reconstruction. Measuring bone loss is controversial; studies use different methods to determine this, with no clear evidence of reproducibility. A systematic review was performed to identify existing CT-based methods of quantifying glenoid bone loss and establish their reliability and reproducibility

Aims

The aim of this review was to evaluate the available literature and to calculate the pooled sensitivity and specificity for the different alpha-defensin test systems that may be used to diagnose prosthetic joint infection (PJI).

Aims. The aim of this study was to investigate the outcome of periprosthetic fractures of the humerus and to assess the uniformity of the classifications used for these fractures (including those around elbow and/or shoulder arthroplasties) by performing a systematic review of the literature. Methods. A systematic search was conducted using the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Healthcare Databases Advance Search. For inclusion, studies had to report clinical outcomes following the management of periprosthetic fractures of the humerus. The protocol was registered on the PROSPERO database. Results. Overall, 40 studies were included, involving a total of 210 patients. The fractures were reported using very heterogeneous classification systems, as were the functional outcome scores. A total of 60 patients had nonoperative treatment with a 50% rate of nonunion. Fixation was undertaken in 99 patients; successful union was obtained in 93 (93%). Revision of either the humeral stem or the whole arthroplasty was reported in 79 patients with a high rate of union (n = 66; 84%), and a mean rate of complications of 29% (0% to 41%). Conclusion. This study highlighted a lack of uniformity in classifying these fractures and reporting the outcome of their treatment. The results may help to inform decision-making with patients, particularly about the rate of complications of nonoperative treatment. There is a need to improve the reporting of the pattern of these fractures using a uniform classification system, and the harmonization of the collection of data relating to the outcome of treatment. Based on this review, we propose a minimum dataset to be used in future studies. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(4):416–423

Aims. Giant cell tumour of bone (GCTB) treatment changed since the introduction of denosumab from purely surgical towards a multidisciplinary approach, with recent concerns of higher recurrence rates after denosumab. We evaluated oncological, surgical, and functional outcomes for distal radius GCTB, with a critically appraised systematic literature review. Methods. We included 76 patients with distal radius GCTB in three sarcoma centres (1990 to 2019). Median follow-up was 8.8 years (2 to 23). Seven patients underwent curettage, 38 curettage with adjuvants, and 31 resection; 20 had denosumab. Results. Recurrence rate was 71% (5/7) after curettage, 32% (12/38) after curettage with adjuvants, and 6% (2/31) after resection. Median time to recurrence was 17 months (4 to 77). Recurrences were treated with curettage with adjuvants (11), resection (six), or curettage (two). Overall, 84% (38/45) was cured after one to thee intralesional procedures. Seven patients had 12 months neoadjuvant denosumab (5 to 15) and sixmonths adjuvant denosumab; two recurred (29%). Twelve patients had six months neoadjuvant denosumab (4 to 10); five recurred (42%). Two had pulmonary metastases (2.6%), both stable after denosumab. Complication rate was 18% (14/76, with 11 requiring surgery). At follow-up, median MusculoSkeletal Tumour Society score was 28 (18 to 30), median Short Form-36 Health Survey was 86 (41 to 95), and median Disability of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand was 7.8 (0 to 58). Conclusion. Distal radius GCTB treatment might deviate from general GCTB treatment because of complexity of wrist anatomy and function. Novel insights on surgical treatment are presented in this multicentre study and systematic review. Intralesional surgery resulted in high recurrence-rate for distal radius GCTB, also with additional denosumab. The large majority of patients however, were cured after repeated curettage. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(7):515–528

Aims. The glenohumeral joint is the most frequently dislocated articulation, but possibly due to the lower prevalence of posterior shoulder dislocations, approximately 50% to 79% of posterior glenohumeral dislocations are missed at initial presentation. The aim of this study was to systematically evaluate the most recent evidence involving the aetiology of posterior glenohumeral dislocations, as well as the diagnosis and treatment. Materials and Methods. A systematic search was conducted using PubMed (MEDLINE), Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane (January 1997 to September 2017), with references from articles also evaluated. Studies reporting patients who experienced an acute posterior glenohumeral joint subluxation and/or dislocation, as well as the aetiology of posterior glenohumeral dislocations, were included. Results. A total of 54 studies met the inclusion criteria. In total, 182 patients were included in this analysis; study sizes ranged from one to 66 patients, with a mean age of 44.2 years (. sd. 13.7). There was a higher proportion of male patients. In all, 216 shoulders were included with 148 unilateral injuries and 34 bilateral. Seizures were implicated in 38% of patients (n = 69), with falls, road traffic accidents, electric shock, and iatrogenic reasons also described. Time to diagnosis varied across studies from immediate up to a delay of 25 years. Multiple associated injuries are described. Conclusion. This review provides an up-to-date insight into the aetiology of posterior shoulder dislocations. Our results showed that seizures were most commonly implicated. Overall, reduction was achieved via open means in the majority of shoulders. We also found that delayed diagnosis is common

Aims. The follow-up interval of a study represents an important aspect that is frequently mentioned in the title of the manuscript. Authors arbitrarily define whether the follow-up of their study is short-, mid-, or long-term. There is no clear consensus in that regard and definitions show a large range of variation. It was therefore the aim of this study to systematically identify clinical research published in high-impact orthopaedic journals in the last five years and extract follow-up information to deduce corresponding evidence-based definitions of short-, mid-, and long-term follow-up. Methods. A systematic literature search was performed to identify papers published in the six highest ranked orthopaedic journals during the years 2015 to 2019. Follow-up intervals were analyzed. Each article was assigned to a corresponding subspecialty field: sports traumatology, knee arthroplasty and reconstruction, hip-preserving surgery, hip arthroplasty, shoulder and elbow arthroplasty, hand and wrist, foot and ankle, paediatric orthopaedics, orthopaedic trauma, spine, and tumour. Mean follow-up data were tabulated for the corresponding subspecialty fields. Comparison between means was conducted using analysis of variance. Results. Of 16,161 published articles, 590 met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 321 were of level IV evidence, 176 level III, 53 level II, and 40 level I. Considering all included articles, a long-term study published in the included high impact journals had a mean follow-up of 151.6 months, a mid-term study of 63.5 months, and a short-term study of 30.0 months. Conclusion. The results of this study provide evidence-based definitions for orthopaedic follow-up intervals that should provide a citable standard for the planning of clinical studies. A minimum mean follow-up of a short-term study should be 30 months (2.5 years), while a mid-term study should aim for a mean follow-up of 60 months (five years), and a long-term study should aim for a mean of 150 months (12.5 years). Level of Evidence: Level I. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(5):344–350

Aims. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate differences in functional outcomes and complications between single- (SI) and double-incision (DI) techniques for the treatment of distal biceps tendon rupture. Methods. A comprehensive search on PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane Central databases was conducted to identify studies reporting comparative results of the SI versus the DI approach. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement was used for search strategy. Of 606 titles, 13 studies met the inclusion criteria; methodological quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Random- and fixed-effects models were used to find differences in outcomes between the two surgical approaches. The range of motion (ROM) and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) scores, as well as neurological and non-neurological complications, were assessed. Results. A total of 2,622 patients were identified. No significant differences in DASH score were detected between the techniques. The SI approach showed significantly greater ROM in flexion (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.508; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.904 to -0.112) and pronation (SMD -0.325, 95% CI -0.637 to -0.012). The DI technique was associated with significantly less risk of lateral antebrachial cutaneous nerve damage (odds ratio (OR) 4.239, 95% CI 2.171 to 8.278), but no differences were found for other nerves evaluated. The SI group showed significantly fewer events of heterotopic ossification (OR 0.430, 95% CI 0.226 to 0.816) and a lower reoperation rate (OR 0.503, 95% CI 0.317 to 0.798). Conclusion. No significant differences in functional scores can be expected between the SI and DI approaches after distal biceps tendon repair. The SI approach showed greater flexion and pronation ROM and a lower risk of heterotopic ossification and reoperation. The DI approach was favourable in terms of lower risk of neurological complications. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(12):1608–1617

Aims. Scapular notching is thought to have an adverse effect on the outcome of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA). However, the matter is still controversial. The aim of this study was to determine the clinical impact of scapular notching on outcomes after RTSA. Methods. Three electronic databases (PubMed, Cochrane Database, and EMBASE) were searched for studies which evaluated the influence of scapular notching on clinical outcome after RTSA. The quality of each study was assessed. Functional outcome scores (the Constant-Murley scores (CMS), and the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) scores), and postoperative range of movement (forward flexion (FF), abduction, and external rotation (ER)) were extracted and subjected to meta-analysis. Effect sizes were expressed as weighted mean differences (WMD). Results. In all, 11 studies (two level III and nine level IV) were included in the meta-analysis. All analyzed variables indicated that scapular notching has a negative effect on the outcome of RTSA . Statistical significance was found for the CMS (WMD –3.11; 95% confidence interval (CI) –4.98 to –1.23), the ASES score (WMD –6.50; 95% CI –10.80 to –2.19), FF (WMD –6.3°; 95% CI –9.9° to –2.6°), and abduction (WMD –9.4°; 95% CI –17.8° to –1.0°), but not for ER (WMD –0.6°; 95% CI –3.7° to 2.5°). Conclusion. The current literature suggests that patients with scapular notching after RTSA have significantly worse results when evaluated by the CMS, ASES score, and range of movement in flexion and abduction. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(11):1438–1445

Aims. This study evaluates the quality of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) reported in childhood fracture trials and recommends outcome measures to assess and report physical function, functional capacity, and quality of life using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) standards. Methods. A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)-compliant systematic review of OVID Medline, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL was performed to identify all PROMs reported in trials. A search of OVID Medline, Embase, and PsycINFO was performed to identify all PROMs with validation studies in childhood fractures. Development studies were identified through hand-searching. Data extraction was undertaken by two reviewers. Study quality and risk of bias was evaluated by COSMIN guidelines and recorded on standardized checklists. Results. Searches yielded 13,672 studies, which were screened to identify 124 trials and two validation studies. Review of the 124 trials identified 16 reported PROMs, of which two had validation studies. The development papers were retrieved for all PROMs. The quality of the original development studies was adequate for Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Mobility and Upper Extremity and doubtful for the EuroQol Five Dimension Youth questionnaire (EQ-5D-Y). All other PROMs were found to have inadequate development studies. No content validity studies were identified. Reviewer-rated content validity was acceptable for six PROMs: Activity Scale for Kids (ASK), Childhood Health Assessment Questionnaire, PROMIS Upper Extremity, PROMIS Mobility, EQ-5D-Y, and Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL4.0). The Modified Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnaire was shown to have indeterminate reliability and convergence validity in one study and PROMIS Upper Extremity had insufficient convergence validity in one study. Conclusion. There is insufficient evidence to recommend strongly the use of any single PROM to assess and report physical function or quality of life following childhood fractures. There is a need to conduct validation studies for PROMs. In the absence of these studies, we cautiously recommend the use of the PROMIS or ASK-P for physical function and the PedsQL4.0 or EQ-5D-Y for quality of life. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(12):1599–1607

Aims

To systematically review the predominant complication rates and changes to patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) following osteochondral allograft (OCA) transplantation for shoulder instability.

Aims

Proximal humeral fractures are the third most common fracture among the elderly. Complications associated with fixation include screw perforation, varus collapse, and avascular necrosis of the humeral head. To address these challenges, various augmentation techniques to increase medial column support have been developed. There are currently no recent studies that definitively establish the superiority of augmented fixation over non-augmented implants in the surgical treatment of proximal humeral fractures. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the outcomes of patients who underwent locking-plate fixation with cement augmentation or bone-graft augmentation versus those who underwent locking-plate fixation without augmentation for proximal humeral fractures.

Aims

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to gather epidemiological information on selected musculoskeletal injuries and to provide pooled injury-specific incidence rates.

Aims

In the UK, the agricultural, military, and construction sectors have stringent rules about the use of hearing protection due to the risk of noise-induced hearing loss. Orthopaedic staff may also be at risk due to the use of power tools. The UK Health and Safety Executive (HSE) have clear standards as to what are deemed acceptable occupational levels of noise on A-weighted and C-weighted scales. The aims of this review were to assess the current evidence on the testing of exposure to noise in orthopaedic operating theatres to see if it exceeds these regulations.

Aims

Arthroplasty is being increasingly used for the management of distal humeral fractures (DHFs) in elderly patients. Arthroplasty options include total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) and hemiarthroplasty (HA); both have unique complications and there is not yet a consensus on which implant is superior. This systematic review asked: in patients aged over 65 years with unreconstructable DHFs, what differences are there in outcomes, as measured by patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), range of motion (ROM), and complications, between distal humeral HA and TEA?

Aims. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the outcome of total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) undertaken for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with TEA performed for post-traumatic conditions with regard to implant failure, functional outcome, and perioperative complications. Materials and Methods. We completed a comprehensive literature search on PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library and conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis. Nine cohort studies investigated the outcome of TEA between RA and post-traumatic conditions. The preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)) guidelines and Newcastle-Ottawa scale were applied to assess the quality of the included studies. We assessed three major outcome domains: implant failures (including aseptic loosening, septic loosening, bushing wear, axle failure, component disassembly, or component fracture); functional outcomes (including arc of range of movement, Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) questionnaire), and perioperative complications (including deep infection, intraoperative fracture, postoperative fracture, and ulnar neuropathy). Results. This study included a total of 679 TEAs for RA (n = 482) or post-traumatic conditions (n = 197). After exclusion, all of the TEAs included in this meta-analysis were cemented with linked components. Our analysis demonstrated that the RA group was associated with a higher risk of septic loosening after TEA (odds ratio (OR) 3.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.11 to 14.12), while there was an increased risk of bushing wear, axle failure, component disassembly, or component fracture in the post-traumatic group (OR 4.72, 95% CI 2.37 to 9.35). A higher MEPS (standardized mean difference 0.634, 95% CI 0.379 to 0.890) was found in the RA group. There were no significant differences in arc of range of movement, DASH questionnaire, and risk of aseptic loosening, deep infection, perioperative fracture, or ulnar neuropathy. Conclusion. The aetiology of TEA surgery appears to have an impact on the outcome in terms of specific modes of implant failures. RA patients might have a better functional outcome after TEA surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:1489–1497

Aims

Preprint servers allow authors to publish full-text manuscripts or interim findings prior to undergoing peer review. Several preprint servers have extended their services to biological sciences, clinical research, and medicine. The purpose of this study was to systematically identify and analyze all articles related to Trauma & Orthopaedic (T&O) surgery published in five medical preprint servers, and to investigate the factors that influence the subsequent rate of publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

Aims

The preoperative diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) remains a challenge due to a lack of biomarkers that are both sensitive and specific. We investigated the performance characteristics of polymerase chain reaction (PCR), interleukin-6 (IL6), and calprotectin of synovial fluid in the diagnosis of PJI.

Aims

The amount of glenoid bone loss is an important factor in deciding between soft-tissue and bony reconstruction when managing anterior shoulder instability. Accurate and reproducible measurement of glenoid bone loss is therefore vital in evaluation of shoulder instability and recommending specific treatment. The aim of this systematic review is to identify the range methods and measurement techniques employed in clinical studies treating glenoid bone loss.

Aims

This study aimed to answer two questions: what are the best diagnostic methods for diagnosing bacterial arthritis of a native joint?; and what are the most commonly used definitions for bacterial arthritis of a native joint?