Aims. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) has become the most common type of shoulder arthroplasty used in the UK, and a better understanding of the outcomes after revision of a failed RSA is needed. The aim of this study was to review the current evidence systematically to determine patient-reported outcome measures and the rates of re-revision and complications for patients undergoing revision of a RSA. Methods. MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched. Studies involving adult patients who underwent revision of a primary RSA for any indication were included. Those who underwent a RSA for failure of a total shoulder arthroplasty or hemiarthroplasty were excluded. Pre- and postoperative shoulder scores were evaluated in a random effects meta-analysis to determine the mean difference. The rates of re-revision and complications were also calculated. Results. The initial search elicited 3,166 results and, following removal of duplicates and screening, 13 studies with a total of 1,042 RSAs were identified. An increase in shoulder scores pre- to postoperatively was reported in all the studies. Following revision of a RSA to a further RSA, there was a significant increase in the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Score (mean difference 20.78 (95% CI 8.16 to 33.40); p = 0.001). A re-revision rate at final follow-up ranging from 9% to 32%, a one-year re-revision rate of 14%, and a five-year re-revision rate of 23% were reported. The complication rate in all the studies was between 18.5% and 36%, with a total incidence of 29%. Conclusion. This is the largest systematic review of the outcomes following revision of a RSA. We found an improvement in functional outcomes after revision surgery, but the rates of re-revision and complications are high and warrant consideration when planning a revision procedure. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(11):1293–1300

Aims. Rates of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) continue to grow. Glenoid bone loss and deformity remains a technical challenge to the surgeon and may reduce improvements in patients’ outcomes. However, there is no consensus as to the optimal surgical technique to best reconstruct these patients’ anatomy. This review aims to compare the outcomes of glenoid bone grafting versus augmented glenoid prostheses in the management of glenoid bone loss in primary reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. Methods. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated study-level data in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. We performed searches of Medline (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), and PubMed from their dates of inception to January 2022. From included studies, we analyzed data for preoperative and postoperative range of motion (ROM), patient-reported functional outcomes, and complication rates. Results. A total of 13 studies (919 shoulders) were included in the analysis. The mean age of patients at initial evaluation was 72.2 years (42 to 87), with a mean follow-up time of 40.7 months (24 to 120). Nine studies with 292 rTSAs evaluated the use of bone graft and five studies with 627 rTSAs evaluated the use of augmented glenoid baseplates. One study was analyzed in both groups. Both techniques demonstrated improvement in patient-reported outcome measures and ROM assessment, with augmented prostheses outperforming bone grafting on improvements in the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Score. There was a higher complication rate (8.9% vs 3.5%; p < 0.001) and revision rate among the bone grafting group compared with the patients who were treated with augmented prostheses (2.4% vs 0.6%; p = 0.022). Conclusion. This review provides strong evidence that both bone graft and augmented glenoid baseplate techniques to address glenoid bone loss give excellent ROM and functional outcomes in primary rTSA. The use of augmented base plates may confer fewer complications and revisions. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(12):1334–1342

Aims

This systematic review places a recently completed multicentre randomized controlled trial (RCT), UK FROST, in the context of existing randomized evidence for the management of primary frozen shoulder. UK FROST compared the effectiveness of pre-specified physiotherapy techniques with a steroid injection (PTSI), manipulation under anaesthesia (MUA) with a steroid injection, and arthroscopic capsular release (ACR). This review updates a 2012 review focusing on the effectiveness of MUA, ACR, hydrodilatation, and PTSI.

Aims

The aim of this study was to evaluate the differences in revision and complication rates, functional outcomes, and radiological outcomes between cemented and press-fit humeral stems in primary anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA).

Aims. The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of surgical repair to conservative treatment and subacromial decompression for the treatment of chronic/degenerative tears of the rotator cuff. Materials and Methods. PubMed, Cochrane database, and Medline were searched for randomized controlled trials published until March 2018. Included studies were assessed for methodological quality, and data were extracted for statistical analysis. The systematic review was conducted following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Results. Six studies were included. Surgical repair resulted in a statistically significantly better Constant–Murley Score (CMS) at one year compared with conservative treatment (mean difference 6.15; p = 0.002) and subacromial decompression alone (mean difference 5.81; p = 0.0004). In the conservatively treated group, 11.9% of patients eventually crossed over to surgical repair. Conclusion. The results of this review show that surgical repair results in significantly improved outcomes when compared with either conservative treatment or subacromial decompression alone for degenerative rotator cuff tears in older patients. However, the magnitude of the difference in outcomes between surgery and conservative treatment may be small and the ‘success rate’ of conservative treatment may be high, allowing surgeons to be judicious in choosing those patients who are most likely to benefit from surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:1100–1106

Objectives

A variety of operative techniques have been described as under the term ‘Bristow-Latarjet’ procedure. This review aims to define the original procedure, and compare the variation in techniques described in the literature, assessing any effect on clinical outcomes.

The aim of this review is to address controversies in the management of dislocations of the acromioclavicular joint. Current evidence suggests that operative rather than non-operative treatment of Rockwood grade III dislocations results in better cosmetic and radiological results, similar functional outcomes and longer time off work. Early surgery results in better functional and radiological outcomes with a reduced risk of infection and loss of reduction compared with delayed surgery.

Surgical options include acromioclavicular fixation, coracoclavicular fixation and coracoclavicular ligament reconstruction. Although non-controlled studies report promising results for arthroscopic coracoclavicular fixation, there are no comparative studies with open techniques to draw conclusions about the best surgical approach. Non-rigid coracoclavicular fixation with tendon graft or synthetic materials, or rigid acromioclavicular fixation with a hook plate, is preferable to fixation with coracoclavicular screws owing to significant risks of loosening and breakage.

The evidence, although limited, also suggests that anatomical ligament reconstruction with autograft or certain synthetic grafts may have better outcomes than non-anatomical transfer of the coracoacromial ligament. It has been suggested that this is due to better restoration horizontal and vertical stability of the joint.

Despite the large number of recently published studies, there remains a lack of high-quality evidence, making it difficult to draw firm conclusions regarding these controversial issues.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:1595–1602.