Chronic massive irreparable rotator cuff tears represent a treatment challenge and the optimal surgical technique remains controversial. Superior capsular reconstruction (SCR) has been proposed as a means to provide superior stability to the glenohumeral joint, thus facilitating restoration of shoulder function. However, despite the growing use of SCR there is a paucity of data evaluating the outcomes when performed using a dermal allograft. The purpose of this study was to (1) report the overall survival rate (reoperation and clinical failure) of SCR (2) evaluate for pre-operative factors predicting reoperation and clinical failure. From January 1, 2015 to November 31, 2017, 65 patients were diagnosed with irreparable rotator cuff tears and consented for a superior capsular reconstruction. These surgeries were performed by 6 surgeons, all fellowship trained in either sports or shoulder and elbow fellowships. Outcomes were graded as excellent, satisfactory, or unsatisfactory using the modified Neer scale. An unsatisfactory result was defined as a clinical “failure”. The Kaplan-Meier survival models were created to analyze reoperation-free and failure-free survival for the entire group. The reconstruction was performed using a dermal allograft. There were 31 patients excluded due to insufficient follow-up (< 6 months), leaving 34 included in this study. The mean follow-up was 12 months (range, 6–23). The average number of prior surgeries was 0.91 (range, 0–5), with 52.9% of patients receiving a prior rotator cuff repair and 38.2% of patients with a prior non-rotator cuff arthroscopy procedure. The one and two-year survival-free of surgery was 64% and 44% and the one and two-year survival free of failure was 34% and 16% following SCR, respectively. For the patients that underwent a reoperation, 62.5% (n= 5/8) underwent reverse shoulder replacements, 25% (n= 2/8) latissimus dorsi tendon transfers, and 12.5% (n= 1/8) a diagnostic arthroscopy. The average period between the primary and revision surgery was 10.2 months (range, 2.1–18.5). All but two patients (75%, n= 6/8) had at least one surgery prior to the SCR. There were 14/34 (41.2%) patients who experienced pain, weakness, and restricted range of motion. These patients were defined as clinical failures with an unsatisfactory grading on Neer's criteria. Previous surgery predicted reoperation (80% vs 43%, p = 0.03). Female gender predicted clinical failure (100% vs 43%, p < 0 .01). Superior Capsule Reconstruction performed for large to massive rotator cuff tears has a high rate of persistent pain and limited function leading to clinical failure in 65% (n= 22/34) of patients. The rate of failure is increased in revision cases, female gender and increased Goutallier fatty infiltration of the infraspinatus. Narrowed indications are recommended given the surgical complexity and high rate of early failure.
Glenoid bone loss is not an uncommon challenge in both primary shoulder arthroplasty surgery and revision surgery. Walch described the classification of glenoid morphology and this has led to an understanding of the expanded role for bone grafting, patient-specific implants and reverse prostheses. While bone grafting of the glenoid in conventional arthroplasty has been shown to be successful in some patients it is more routinely used in combination with reverse prostheses. More recently, augmented glenoid components have been developed for both conventional and reverse arthroplasty, though follow-up is insufficient to confirm their durability at this time.
After shoulder arthroplasty many pain generators may continue to play a role and these might otherwise be missed in a patient where the post-operative radiograph looks fine. Such conditions might include pain from an adjacent location such as the AC joint, or stress fracture of the acromion with reverse prostheses. Unrecognised infection or rotator cuff tear are also factors to consider. Moreover, anxiety and depression may be relevant to the outcome of shoulder arthroplasty.
Age is the most accurate surrogate for bone density and poor bone density is the reason for many fracture repairs to fail. Hemiarthroplasty has demonstrated consistently inconsistent results in terms for restoration of function. Most recently, with the evolution of reverse prostheses, prospective studies which are, in many cases, randomised and Level 2, have clearly shown reverse prostheses to be the most consistently reliable treatment in the patient noted above. It is with a high degree of certainty that we can inform such a patient that their function will be restored and their pain minimal with such treatment.
Partial humeral head resurfacing using a stemless implant is a bone-conserving option in treatment of focal chondral defects. We report our experience using the Arthrosurface HemiCAP® device. This is a retrospective study of patients with focal chondral defects of the humeral head, treated with partial resurfacing arthroplasty, with a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Mean patient age was 45.4 years (range 27–76). Patients were analyzed in 2 groups: those who underwent HemiCAP for an isolated humeral head defect, and those who had HemiCAP combined with biologic resurfacing of concomitant glenoid disease.Background
Methods
To study the outcomes of DVR plating for distal radius fractures. We prospectively studied all patients managed with a DVR plate, over a twelve-month period in 2006/07. All patients were seen in our dedicated research clinic at 2, 6, 12 and 26 weeks post-operatively. Physiotherapy started at 2 weeks post-operatively. Active range of motion (ROM) of the injured wrist was recorded at 6, 12 and 26 weeks and compared with the normal side. Standardised radiographs were taken at 2 and 6 weeks and compared with pre- and post-operative films for radial and volar angulations, relative radial length, ulnar variance and implant position. Patient satisfaction was measured with the Patient Rated Wrist Evaluation score (PRWE) at 6, 12 and 26 weeks.Aims
Methods
A retrospective review of 51 consecutive patients undergoing fixation of Scaphoid fractures by two surgeons in a single institution was conducted. Twenty-four patients were treated with a Herbert screw and twenty-seven with an Acutrak screw. This included six patients who underwent acute fixation, three in each group. The remaining cases were for the treatment of non-union and delayed union. There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of age, side of injury, and mechanism of injury. Fractures were classified as proximal, middle and distal thirds of the Scaphoid and there was no significant difference between the groups regarding the types of fractures treated. The only significant difference between the groups was the time from injury to fixation when considering the cases of delayed union and non union which was greater in the Herbert screw group (7.5 months vs 4 months p=<0.05). There was no significant difference in outcome between the two methods of fixation. Union rates for all cases were 79% for Herbert screws and 81% for Acutrak screws and 82% and 83% respectively when only considering the delayed union/non-union procedures. There was no difference in terms of time to union, further surgery or clinical outcome between the two groups. The Acutrak screw required removal in five patients and the Herbert screw in two due to symptoms from screw prominence. This was not statistically significant. In conclusion there is no significant difference in surgical outcome between these two methods of fixation for Scaphoid fractures. The authors feel that this supports the view that biological factors are more important than the method of fixation in obtaining union of Scaphoid fractures.
