Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty (RSA) has been widely accepted for the treatment of rotator cuff arthropathy. There are a number of other shoulder pathologies where the reverse shoulder prosthesis can salvage previously untreatable shoulder conditions and restore function to the shoulder. This is a series of cases where RSA has been used to treat shoulder fractures.

Crosby and Colleagues described 24 scapula fractures in 400 reverse shoulder arthroplasties and classified scapula fractures after reverse shoulder arthroplasty into 3 types.

Type 1 – true avulsion fracture of acromion related to a thinned out acromion (post-acromioplaty or cuff arthropathy). A small bone fragment dislodges during reduction of RSA.

Type 2 – Acromial fracture due to Acromio-clavicular (AC) joint arthrosis. They feel the lack of movement at the AC joint leads to stresses across the acromion and cause it to fracture. They recommend AC joint resection and ORIF of acromion, if the acromion is unstable.

Type 3 – true scapula spine fracture caused by the superior screw acting as a stress riser. This fracture occurs about 8 months after the arthroplasty and is a true stress fracture requiring open reduction and internal fixation.

Of 123 reverse shoulder arthroplasties performed from Jan 2003 to Feb 2011, a total of 6 scapula fractures were encountered post-surgery. Three were acromial fractures and three were scapula spine fractures all related to trauma. The fractures of the spine occurred between 6 months and 4 years post arthroplasty. We feel the fractures were traumatic but did occur through the posterior or superior screws from the metaglen. where stress risers developed for a fracture to occur.

We found that using a sliding osteotomy of the spine of the scapula to bridge the defect of the scapula and a double-plating technique using two plates at 90 degrees to each other provides a satisfactory outcome after 3–6 months where patients can start actively elevating again. This method of treatment will be presented.

Forearm lengthening in children is controversial. Paley (1990) and Peterson (1994) advocate aggressive treatment of the deformity for cosmetic and functional reasons. Scoenecker (1997) has shown that mature patients are comfortable with their appearance and functional deficit.

We reviewed 8 forearm lengthenings performed in 8 children in the 14 year period from 1991 to 2004. Five patients had ulnar shortening (osteochondromata = 4, growth arrest due to trauma = 1). Of the three patients with radial shortening, one was due to a congenital short radius and two following growth arrest (post trauma and meningococcal septicemia). The shortening resulted in a cosmetically unacceptable ulnar or radial tilt with absent radial or ulnar deviation of the wrist and decreased supination and/or pronation. One patient with a proximal ulnar osteochondroma had a dislocation of the radial head with cubitus varus.

Excision of the osteochondroma was done 6 months prior to lengthening. Lengthening was accomplished with two Ilizarov rings and a distal corticotomy for radial and proximal for ulnar shortening. Reduction of the dislocated radial head was achieved with an olive wire. Associated procedures were: hemiepiphyseal stapling of the distal radius for an increased radial articular angle in 3 patients with osteochondroma, and corrective osteotomy of the distal radius in 1 patient with growth arrest. The average lengthening obtained was 23 mm (range 13–40 mm) with an average lengthening index of 1.45 months per cm.

At an average follow-up of six years (range 2–15 years; 7 to maturity) all patients were satisfied with the cosmetic improvement and had full radial and ulnar deviation. Except for two patients the supination/pronation was improved. We concluded the forearm lengthening is warranted for cosmetic and functional reasons.