Interstitial supraspinatus tears can cause persistent subacromial impingement symptoms despite non operative treatment. Autologous tendon cell injection (ATI) is a non-surgical treatment for tendinopathies and tear. We report a randomised controlled study of ATI compared to corticosteroid injection (CS) as treatment for interstitial supraspinatus tears and tendinopathy.

Inclusion criteria were patients with symptom duration > 6 months, MRI confirmed intrasubstance supraspinatus tear, and prior treatment with physiotherapy and ≥ one CS or PRP injection. Participants were randomised to receive ATI to the interstitial tear or corticosteroid injection to the subacromial bursa in a 2:1 ratio, under ultrasound guidance. Assessments of pain (VAS) and function (ASES) were performed at baseline, and 1, 3, 6 and 12 months post treatment.

30 participants (19 randomised to ATI) with a mean age of 50.5 years (10 females) and a mean duration of symptoms of 23.5 months. Baseline VAS pain and ASES scores were comparable between groups. While mean VAS pain scores improved in both groups at 3 months after treatment, pain scores were superior with ATI at 6 months (p=0.01). Mean ASES scores in the ATI group were superior to the CS group at 3 months (p=0.026) and 6 months (p=0.012). Seven participants in the CS group withdrew prior to 12 months due to lack of improvement. At 12 months, mean VAS pain in the ATI group was 1.6 ± 1.3. The improvements in mean ASES scores in the ATI group at 6 and 12 months were greater than the MCID (12.0 points). At 12 months, 95% of ATI participants had an ASES score > the PASS (patient acceptable symptom state).

This is the first level one study using ATI to treat interstitial supraspinatus tear. ATI results in a significant reduction in pain and improvement in shoulder function.

The causes of a stiff elbow are numerous including: post-traumatic elbow, burns, head injury, osteoarthritis, inflammatory joint disease and congenital.

Types of stiffness include: loss of elbow flexion, loss of elbow extension and loss of forearm rotation. All three have different prognoses in terms of the timing of surgery and the likelihood of restoration of function.

Contractures can be classified into extrinsic and intrinsic (all intrinsic develop some extrinsic component). Functional impairment can be assessed medicolegally; however, in clinical practice the patient puts an individual value on the arc of motion. Objectively most functions can be undertaken with an arc of 30 to 130 degrees.

The commonest cause of a Post-traumatic Stiff elbow is a radial head fracture or a complex fracture dislocation. Risk factors for stiffness include length of immobilisation, associated fracture with dislocation, intra-articular derangement, delayed surgical treatment, associated head injury, heterotopic ossification. Early restoration of bony columns and joint stability to allow early mobilisation reduces incidence of joint stiffness. Heterotopic ossification (HO) is common in fracture dislocation of the elbow. Neural Axis trauma alone causes HO in elbows in 5%. However, combined neural trauma and elbow trauma the incidence is 89%. Stiffness due to thermal injury is usually related to the degree rather than the site. The majority of patients have greater than 20% total body area involved.

Extrinsic contractures are usually managed with a sequential release of soft tissues commencing with a capsular excision (retaining LCL/MCL), posterior bundle of the MCL +/− ulna nerve decompression (if there is loss of flexion to 100 degrees). This reliably achieved via a posterior incision, a lateral column exposure +/− ulna nerve mobilisation. A medial column exposure is a viable alternative. Arthroscopic capsular release although associated with a quicker easier rehabilitation is associated with increased neural injury. Timing of release is specific to the type of contracture, i.e. flexion contractures after approx. six months, extension contractures ASAP but after four months, loss of forearm rotation less 6 to 24 months.

The use of Hinged Elbow Fixators is increasing. The indications include reconstructions that require protection whilst allowing early movement, persistent instability or recurrent/late instability or interposition arthroplasty.

Post-operative rehabilitation requires good analgesia, joint stability and early movement. The role of CPM is often helpful but still being evaluated.

This study reviews the early results of Distal Humeral Hemiarthroplasty(DHH) for distal humeral fracture and proposed a treatment algorithm incorporating the use of this technique in the overall management of distal humeral fractures.

DHH was performed on 30 patients (mean 65 years; 29-91) for unreconstructable fractures of the distal humerus or salvage of failed internal fixation. A triceps on approach was used in six and an olecranon osteotomy in 24. A Sorbie Questor prosthesis (Wright Medical Technology) was used in 14 patients and a Latitude (Tornier) in 16. Clinical review at a mean of 25 months (3–88) included the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons elbow outcomes instrument (ASES), Mayo Elbow Performance Index (MEPI) and radiological assessment.

At follow up of 28 patients mean flexion deformity was 25 degrees, flexion 128 degrees, range of pronosupination 165 degrees, mean ASES 83, MEPI 77 and satisfaction 8/10. Acute cases scored better than salvage cases. Re- operation was required in 16 patients (53%); two revisions to a linked prosthesis for periprosthetic fracture and aseptic loosening at 53 and 16 months, 12 metalwork removals and four ulnar nerve procedures. Posterolateral rotatory instability was present in one elbow, four had laxity and mild pain on loading (two with prosthesis or pin loosening), four had laxity associated with column fractures (two symptomatic) and 10 had asymptomatic mild laxity only. The triceps on approach had worse instability and clinical scores. Uncomplicated union occurred in all olecranon osteotomies and 86% of column fractures. One elbow had an incomplete cement mantle and seven had lucencies >1 mm; one was loose but acceptable. Five prostheses were in slight varus. Two elbows had early degenerative changes and 15 developed a medial spur on the trochlea.

This is the largest reported experience of DHH. Early results of DHH show good outcomes after complex distal humeral fractures, despite a technically demanding procedure. Better results are obtained for treatment in the acute setting and with use of an olecranon osteotomy. As a result of this experience anatomical and clinical pre-requisites and advise on technique are outlined. An algorithm for use of DHH in relation to total elbow arthroplasty and ORIF for the treatment of complex intra-articular distal humeral fractures with or without column fractures is proposed.

Successful ORIF of proximal humeral fractures requires a careful assessment of the patient factors (age/osteoporosis/functional expectations), accurate identification the fracture segments (head/shaft/tuberosities) and accessory factors which are of vascular and surgical relevance (length of posteromedial metaphyseal head extension, integrity of medial soft tissue hinge, head split segments, tuberosity/head segments impacted to-gether or distracted apart).

Fixation of the fracture can be achieved by a number of techniques because of the multiple factors that often apply—numerous techniques are usually required of the surgeon.

The principles of fixation require accurate restoration of the head and tuberosity orientation, fixation of the metaphyseal segments (tuberosities) results in a stable circular platform on which the head segment rests. Thus, the fixation of choice acts as a load sharing device not a load bearing device. This fixation is often augmented with tension band and circlage suture fixation. These concepts are especially applicable to the osteoporotic patient.

The order of fixation requires that the medial hinge not be disrupted. If it is disrupted in the younger patient it requires fixation first. All tuberosity segments are tagged with ethibond sutures. The head and the largest tuberosity segment are reduced and held with k-wire or canulated scews, avoiding the central medullary canal entry point. If the head tuberosity segment is unstable in relation to the shaft, the fixation implant of choice (plate/intramedullary) is chosen and the head/tuberosity complex is reduced to the shaft. Depending on the fracture segments and the degree of comminution this may require compression of distraction.

Post-op the patient is immobilised in external rotation to balance the cuff forces. If very rigid fixation is achieved then early mobilisation is undertaken to minimise the adhesions due to opening of the subdeltoid space. If fixation is tenuous movement is commenced a 3–4 weeks.

AVN of the humeral head with good tuberosity head architecure can be salvaged. The diagnosis of AVN is determned at three months with a MRI and consideration given to Zolidronate therapy. Post-traumatic stiffness with good architecture can be salvaged with an arthroscopic capsular release.