Rotator cuff tears are common in middle-aged and elderly patients. Despite advances in the surgical repair of rotator cuff tears, the rates of recurrent tear remain high. This may be due to the complexity of the tendons of the rotator cuff, which contributes to an inherently hostile healing environment. During the past 20 years, there has been an increased interest in the use of biologics to complement the healing environment in the shoulder, in order to improve rotator cuff healing and reduce the rate of recurrent tears. The aim of this review is to provide a summary of the current evidence for the use of forms of biological augmentation when repairing rotator cuff tears.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(9):978–985.

The February 2023 Shoulder & Elbow Roundup. 360. looks at: Arthroscopic capsular release or manipulation under anaesthesia for frozen shoulder?; Distal biceps repair through a single incision?; Distal biceps tendon ruptures: diagnostic strategy through physical examination; Postoperative multimodal opioid-sparing protocol vs standard opioid prescribing after knee or shoulder arthroscopy: a randomized clinical trial; Graft healing is more important than graft technique in massive rotator cuff tear; Subscapularis tenotomy versus peel after anatomic shoulder arthroplasty; Previous rotator cuff repair increases the risk of revision surgery for periprosthetic joint infection after reverse shoulder arthroplasty; Conservative versus operative treatment of acromial and scapular spine fractures following reverse total shoulder arthroplasty

The December 2022 Shoulder & Elbow Roundup. 360. looks at: Biceps tenotomy versus soft-tissue tenodesis in females aged 60 years and older with rotator cuff tears; Resistance training combined with corticosteroid injections or tendon needling in patients with lateral elbow tendinopathy; Two-year functional outcomes of completely displaced midshaft clavicle fractures in adolescents; Patients who undergo rotator cuff repair can safely return to driving at two weeks postoperatively; Are two plates better than one? A systematic review of dual plating for acute midshaft clavicle fractures; Treatment of acute distal biceps tendon ruptures; Rotator cuff tendinopathy: disability associated with depression rather than pathology severity; Coonrad-Morrey total elbow arthroplasty implications in young patients with post-traumatic sequelae

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. The conventionally described mechanism of distal biceps tendon rupture (DBTR) is of a ‘considerable extension force suddenly applied to a resisting, actively flexed forearm’. This has been commonly paraphrased as an ‘eccentric contracture to a flexed elbow’. Both definitions have been frequently used in the literature with little objective analysis or citation. The aim of the present study was to use video footage of real time distal biceps ruptures to revisit and objectively define the mechanism of injury. Methods. An online search identified 61 videos reporting a DBTR. Videos were independently reviewed by three surgeons to assess forearm rotation, elbow flexion, shoulder position, and type of muscle contraction being exerted at the time of rupture. Prospective data on mechanism of injury and arm position was also collected concurrently for 22 consecutive patients diagnosed with an acute DBTR in order to corroborate the video analysis. Results. Four videos were excluded, leaving 57 for final analysis. Mechanisms of injury included deadlift, bicep curls, calisthenics, arm wrestling, heavy lifting, and boxing. In all, 98% of ruptures occurred with the arm in supination and 89% occurred at 0° to 10° of elbow flexion. Regarding muscle activity, 88% occurred during isometric contraction, 7% during eccentric contraction, and 5% during concentric contraction. Interobserver correlation scores were calculated as 0.66 to 0.89 using the free-marginal Fleiss Kappa tool. The prospectively collected patient data was consistent with the video analysis, with 82% of injuries occurring in supination and 95% in relative elbow extension. Conclusion. Contrary to the classically described injury mechanism, in this study the usual arm position during DBTR was forearm supination and elbow extension, and the muscle contraction was typically isometric. This was demonstrated for both video analysis and ‘real’ patients across a range of activities leading to rupture. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(10):826–831

Aims. Acute distal biceps tendon repair reduces fatigue-related pain and minimizes loss of supination of the forearm and strength of flexion of the elbow. We report the short- and long-term outcome following repair using fixation with a cortical button techqniue. Methods. Between October 2010 and July 2018, 102 patients with a mean age of 43 years (19 to 67), including 101 males, underwent distal biceps tendon repair less than six weeks after the injury, using cortical button fixation. The primary short-term outcome measure was the rate of complications. The primary long-term outcome measure was the abbreviated Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (QuickDASH) score. Secondary outcomes included the Oxford Elbow Score (OES), EuroQol five-dimension three-level score (EQ-5D-3L), satisfaction, and return to function. Results. Eight patients (7.8%) had a major complication and 34 (33.3%) had a minor complication. Major complications included re-rupture (n = 3; 2.9%), unrecovered nerve injury (n = 4; 3.9%), and surgery for heterotopic ossification (n = 1; 1.0%). Three patients (2.9%) overall required further surgery for a complication. Minor complications included neurapraxia (n = 27; 26.5%) and superficial infection (n = 7; 6.9%). A total of 33 nerve injuries occurred in 31 patients (30.4%). At a mean follow-up of five years (1 to 9.8) outcomes were available for 86 patients (84.3%). The median QuickDASH, OES, EQ-5D-3L, and satisfaction scores were 1.2 (IQR 0 to 5.1), 48 (IQR 46 to 48), 0.80 (IQR 0.72 to 1.0), and 100/100 (IQR 90 to 100), respectively. Most patients were able to return to work (81/83, 97.6%) and sport (51/62,82.3%). Unrecovered nerve injury was associated with an inferior outcome according to the QuickDASH (p = 0.005), OES (p = 0.004), EQ-5D-3L (p = 0.010), and satisfaction (p = 0.024). Multiple linear regression analysis identified an unrecovered nerve injury to be strongly associated with an inferior outcome according to the QuickDASH score (p < 0.001), along with infection (p < 0.001), although re-rupture (p = 0.440) and further surgery (p = 0.652) were not. Conclusion. Acute distal biceps tendon repair using cortical button fixation was found to result in excellent patient-reported outcomes and health-related quality of life. Although rare, unrecovered nerve injury adversely affects outcome. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(7):1284–1291

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

Elective surgery has been severely curtailed as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. There is little evidence to guide surgeons in assessing what processes should be put in place to restart elective surgery safely in a time of endemic COVID-19 in the community.

The best method of managing a fracture of the distal humerus in a frail low-demand patient with osteoporotic bone remains controversial. Total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) has been recommended for patients in whom open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) is not possible. Conservative methods of treatment, including the ‘bag of bones’ technique (acceptance of displacement of the bony fragments and early mobilisation), are now rarely considered as they are believed to give a poor functional result.

We reviewed 40 elderly and low-demand patients (aged 50 to 93 years, 72% women) with a fracture of the distal humerus who had been treated conservatively at our hospital between March 2008 and December 2013, and assessed their short- and medium-term functional outcome.

In the short-term, the mean Broberg and Morrey score improved from 42 points (poor; 23 to 80) at six weeks after injury to 67 points (fair; 40 to 88) by three months.

In the medium-term, surviving patients (n = 20) had a mean Oxford elbow score of 30 points (7 to 48) at four years and a mean Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score of 38 points (0 to 75): 95% reported a functional range of elbow flexion. The cumulative rate of fracture union at one year was 53%. The mortality at five years approached 40%.

Conservative management of a fracture of the distal humerus in a low-demand patient only gives a modest functional result, but avoids the substantial surgical risks associated with primary ORIF or TEA.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1132–8.

The December 2014 Shoulder & Elbow Roundup. 360 . looks at: cuff tears and plexus injury; . corticosteroids and physiotherapy in SAI; diabetes and elbow arthroplasty; distal biceps tendon repairs; shockwave therapy in frozen shoulder; hydrodilation and steroids for adhesive capsulitis; just what do our patients read?; and what happens to that stable radial head fracture?