Resurfacing of the glenohumeral joint has gained popularity since its first introduction in 1958. Advantages of resurfacing over conventional shoulder arthroplasty include preservation of humeral bone stock, closer replication of individual anatomy, reduction of periprosthetic fracture risk, non-violation of medullary canal, and ease of revision to a stemmed component if needed. We reviewed a group of patients with arthrosis of the glenohumeral joint who underwent humeral resurfacing, and who were at a minimum of two years post surgery. From January 2000 to March 2011, 51 humeral resurfacing procedures were performed in 49 patients. Patients were contacted for review, and assessed using patient reported outcome measures. An Oxford Shoulder score as well as a subjective satisfaction and outcome questionnaire was completed, as well as details regarding further surgery or revision. 2 patients had died, 11 patients were not contactable, and in 4 the medical files had been lost. In the remaining 32 shoulders, the average follow-up was 5.9 years. The mean age at time of surgery was 62.3 years (range 36 to 84).Introduction
Materials and Methods
This study looks at the outcomes of 112 full thickness rotator cuff tears treated by arthroscopic decompression, without repair of the rotator cuff, from 1994. The decision not to repair the tear was taken only if four criteria were met. First, if there was no clinical weakness on manual testing of the individual rotator cuff muscles, secondly, if there was full abduction, thirdly, if there was no riding up of the humeral head on the anteroposterior radiograph and fourthly, if there was well-developed ‘cable’ on arthroscopic visualisation of the rotator cuff. The mean age of the patients, 38% of whom were men, was 62 years (47 to 83). In 44% the right shoulder was operated on. There were 32% type-II acromions and 68% type-III. There were 58% C2 tears and 42% C3 tears. All had arthroscopic acromioplasty and acromioclavicular joint excision. Later, three required an open acromioclavicular joint excision with one open cuff repair. At a mean follow-up time of 71 months (11 to 110), the clinical and surgical notes and radiographs were reviewed and a modified Simple Shoulder Test (SST) used to evaluate outcomes by telephone. The mean postoperative SST was 11.5 out of 12 (3 to 12). Complete relief was reported in 84% of cases. These subjective results suggest that, with careful selection, not all full thickness tears of the rotator cuff need repair.
We retrospectively reviewed the results of 21 patients (22 shoulders) who had surgery for os acromiale. The mean age of the 6 men and 15 women was 52 years. The dominant side was involved in 10 patients. The duration of symptoms ranged from one month to 13 years. Ten patients had a history of recent trauma. All presented with tenderness over the site of the os and signs of impingement. In three patients, signs of weakness suggested a rotator cuff tear, and three patients had tenderness over the acromioclavicular joint. Rotator cuff tears, four partial and eight full thickness, were present in 12 cases. Surgery included excision of the os in nine cases and fixation in 13. Ancillary procedures included acro-mioclavicular joint excision (eight), rotator cuff repair (eight), cuff debridement (three) and biceps tenodesis (one). At follow-up, which ranged from 5 months to 6 years, Constant and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons’ scores were assessed. The presence of a deltoid defect was noted and deltoid strength was measured. The mean Constant score at follow-up was 77. Deltoid strength was notably reduced in abduction but not in forward flexion. There were no cases of sepsis. Five cases required further surgery. In three, this involved removal of metal, but persistent pain necessitated one subsequent rotator cuff repair and one arthroscopic debridement of the subacromial space. The outcome of both fixation and excision was satisfactory, but the reoperation rate was higher in patients who underwent fixation. We advise arthroscopic excision of meso-acromion in the absence of a full thickness rotator cuff tear.
To determine the radiological signs and the ease of diagnosis on different views, we reviewed true antero-posterior, axillary and supraspinatus outlet views of 26 shoulders with os acromiale. The anteroposterior view shows sclerosis and ‘double oval’. The supraspinatus outlet view shows a ‘double’ acromion. The axillary view demonstrates the site of the pseudarthrosis and size of the os. The os acromiale was visible on the anteroposterior view in 25 cases, on the supraspinatus outlet in 20 cases and on the axillary view in 17 cases. It was visible in at least two views in 25 of the cases. The os was more often evident on the anteroposterior view, but more clearly seen on the axillary. A radiologist reported on 13 of the X-rays and missed the diagnoses in nine cases. In two cases, the surgeon missed the radiological diagnosis. There were 20 meso-acromions and two pre-acromions.
