The purpose of this study was to compare the outcome and complications of endoscopic versus open release for the treatment of de Quervain’s tenosynovitis. Patients with this condition were randomised to undergo either endoscopic (n = 27) or open release (n = 25). Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) pain and Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) scores were measured at 12 and 24 weeks after surgery. Scar satisfaction was measured using a VAS scale. The mean pain and DASH scores improved significantly at 12 weeks and 24 weeks (p <  0.001) in both groups. The scores were marginally lower in the endoscopic group compared to the open group at 12 weeks (p = 0.012 and p = 0.002, respectively); however, only the DASH score showed a clinically important difference. There were no differences between the groups at 24 weeks. The mean VAS scar satisfaction score was higher in the endoscopic group at 24 weeks (p < 0.001). Transient superficial radial nerve injury occurred in three patients in the endoscopic group compared with nine in the open release group (p = 0.033).

We conclude that endoscopic release for de Quervain’s tenosynovitis seems to provide earlier improvement after surgery, with fewer superficial radial nerve complications and greater scar satisfaction, when compared with open release.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:947–51.

We investigated the incidence of and risk factors for venous thromboembolism (VTE) following surgery of the shoulder and elbow and assessed the role of thromboprophylaxis in upper limb surgery. All papers describing VTE after shoulder and elbow surgery published in the English language literature before 31 March 2012 were reviewed. A total of 14 papers were available for analysis, most of which were retrospective studies and case series. The incidence of VTE was 0.038% from 92 440 shoulder arthroscopic procedures, 0.52% from 42 261 shoulder replacements, and 0.64% from 4833 procedures for fractures of the proximal humerus (open reduction and internal fixation or hemiarthroplasty). The incidence following replacement of the elbow was 0.26% from 2701 procedures. Diabetes mellitus, rheumatoid arthritis and ischaemic heart disease were identified as the major risk factors. The evidence that exists on thromboprophylaxis is based on level III and IV studies, and we therefore cannot make any recommendations on prophylaxis based on the current evidence. It seems reasonable to adopt a multimodal approach that involves all patients receiving mechanical prophylaxis, with chemical prophylaxis reserved for those who are at high risk for VTE. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:70–4

We have investigated the outcome of arthroscopic revision surgery for recurrent instability of the shoulder after failed primary anterior stabilisation. We identified 40 patients with failed primary open or arthroscopic anterior stabilisation of the shoulder who had been treated by revision arthroscopic capsulolabral reconstruction and followed up for a mean of 36 months (12 to 87). There were 34 men and six women with a mean age of 33.1 years (15 to 48). Details of the patients, the technique of the primary procedure, the operative findings at revision and the clinical outcome were evaluated by reviewing the medical records, physical examination and the use of the Western Ontario shoulder instability index score, the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score and the health status questionnaire 12. Recurrent instability persisted in four patients after the revision arthroscopic procedure. At the final follow-up, the mean American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score was 81.1 (17.5 to 99.5) and the mean Western Ontario shoulder instability index score was 68.2 (20 to 98.2). Quality-of-life scoring showed good to excellent results in most patients. Arthroscopic revision capsulolabral reconstruction can provide a satisfactory outcome in selected patients for recurrent instability of the shoulder provided that no large Hill-Sachs lesion is present

The aim of this study was to define the microcirculation of the normal rotator cuff during arthroscopic surgery and investigate whether it is altered in diseased cuff tissue.

Blood flow was measured intra-operatively by laser Doppler flowmetry. We investigated six different zones of each rotator cuff during the arthroscopic examination of 56 consecutive patients undergoing investigation for impingement, cuff tears or instability; there were 336 measurements overall.

The mean laser Doppler flowmetry flux was significantly higher at the edges of the tear in torn cuffs (43.1, 95% confidence interval (CI) 37.8 to 48.4) compared with normal cuffs (32.8, 95% CI 27.4 to 38.1; p = 0.0089). It was significantly lower across all anatomical locations in cuffs with impingement (25.4, 95% CI 22.4 to 28.5) compared with normal cuffs (p = 0.0196), and significantly lower in cuffs with impingement compared with torn cuffs (p < 0.0001).

Laser Doppler flowmetry analysis of the rotator cuff blood supply indicated a significant difference between the vascularity of the normal and the pathological rotator cuff. We were unable to demonstrate a functional hypoperfusion area or so-called ‘critical zone’ in the normal cuff. The measured flux decreases with advancing impingement, but there is a substantial increase at the edges of rotator cuff tears. This might reflect an attempt at repair.

We identified ten patients who underwent arthroscopic revision of anterior shoulder stabilisation between 1999 and 2005. Their results were compared with 15 patients, matched for age and gender, who had a primary arthroscopic stabilisation during the same period.

At a mean follow-up of 37 and 36 months, respectively, the scores for pain and shoulder function improved significantly between the pre-operative and follow-up visits in both groups (p = 0.002), with no significant difference between them (p = 0.4). The UCLA and Rowe shoulder scores improved significantly (p = 0.004 and p = 0.002, respectively), with no statistically significant differences between groups (p = 0.6). Kaplan-Meier analysis for time to recurrent instability showed no differences between the groups (p = 0.2).

These results suggest that arthroscopic revision anterior shoulder stabilisation is as reliable as primary arthroscopic stabilisation for patients who have had previous open surgery for recurrent anterior instability.

There is no simple method available to identify patients who will develop recurrent instability after an arthroscopic Bankart procedure and who would be better served by an open operation. We carried out a prospective case-control study of 131 consecutive unselected patients with recurrent anterior shoulder instability who underwent this procedure using suture anchors. At follow-up after a mean of 31.2 months (24 to 52) 19 (14.5%) had recurrent instability. The following risk factors were identified: patient age under 20 years at the time of surgery; involvement in competitive or contact sports or those involving forced overhead activity; shoulder hyperlaxity; a Hill-Sachs lesion present on an anteroposterior radiograph of the shoulder in external rotation and/or loss of the sclerotic inferior glenoid contour. These factors were integrated in a 10-point pre-operative instability severity index score and tested retrospectively on the same population. Patients with a score over 6 points had an unacceptable recurrence risk of 70% (p < 0.001). On this basis we believe that an arthroscopic Bankart repair is contraindicated in these patients, to whom we now suggest a Bristow-Latarjet procedure instead

We retrospectively identified 18 consecutive patients with synovial chrondromatosis of the shoulder who had arthroscopic treatment between 1989 and 2004. Of these, 15 were available for review at a mean follow-up of 5.3 years (2.3 to 16.5). There were seven patients with primary synovial chondromatosis, but for the remainder, the condition was a result of secondary causes. The mean Constant score showed that pain and activities of daily living were the most affected categories, being only 57% and 65% of the values of the normal side. Surgery resulted in a significant improvement in the mean Constant score in these domains from 8.9 (4 to 15) to 11.3 (2 to 15) and from 12.9 (5 to 20) to 18.7 (11 to 20), respectively (unpaired t-test, p = 0.04 and p < 0.0001, respectively). Movement and strength were not significantly affected. Osteoarthritis was present in eight patients at presentation and in 11 at the final review. Recurrence of the disease with new loose bodies occurred in two patients from the primary group at an interval of three and 12 years post-operatively. In nine patients, loose bodies were also present in the bicipital groove; seven of these underwent an open bicipital debridement and tenodesis.

We found that arthroscopic debridement of the glenohumeral joint and open debridement and tenodesis of the long head of biceps, when indicated, are safe and effective in relieving symptoms at medium-term review.

A systematic search of the literature published between January 1985 and February 2006 identified 62 studies which reported the results of arthroscopic procedures for chronic anterior shoulder instability or comparisons between arthroscopic and open surgery. These studies were classified by surgical technique and research methodology, and when appropriate, were included in a meta-analysis. The failure rate of arthroscopic shoulder stabilisation using staples or transglenoid suture techniques appeared to be significantly higher than that of either open surgery or arthroscopic stabilisation using suture anchors or bio-absorbable tacks. Arthroscopic anterior stabilisation using the most effective techniques has a similar rate of failure to open stabilisation after two years

The short-term assessment of 14 arthroscopic synovectomies of the elbow in 11 patients with rheumatoid arthritis showed that 93% achieved a short-term rating of excellent or good on the Mayo Elbow Performance Score. At the most recent assessment at an average of 42 months, however, only 57% maintained excellent or good results; four had required total elbow replacement. Although rehabilitation is facilitated by an arthroscopic procedure the results deteriorate more rapidly than after open synovectomy. This may be due to the limitations of the arthroscopic technique and is consistent with experience of the similar procedure in the knee. Recognition of the short-term gain and the potential for serious nerve injury should be considered when offering arthroscopic synovectomy