The June 2014 Shoulder & Elbow Roundup. 360 . looks at: suprascapular nerve and rotator cuff pathology; anchors in Bankart repair: it’s not what you’ve got, but how you use it; not all shoulder PROMs are equal; reverse shoulder arthroplasty OK in trauma; not all in the mind: frozen shoulder personality debunked; open and arthroscopic repair equivalent in shoulder instability; natural history of olecranon fractures not so bleak?; and resurfacing of the shoulder: a Danish perspective

The October 2013 Shoulder & Elbow Roundup. 360 . looks at: Deltoid impairment not necessarily a contra-indication for shoulder arthroplasty; The tricky radiograph; Not so asymptomatic cuff tears; Total shoulder arthroplasty: kinder on the glenoid; Barbotage for calcific tendonitis; What happens to the arthritic glenoid?; Two screws a screw too few?; Sloppy hinge best for elbow arthroplasty

The October 2014 Shoulder & Elbow Roundup. 360 . looks at: PRP is not effective in tennis elbow; eccentric physiotherapy effective in subacromial pain; dexamethasone in shoulder surgery; arthroscopic remplissage for engaging Hill-Sach’s lesions; a consistent approach to subacromial impingement; delay in fixation of proximal humeral fractures detrimental to outcomes

The August 2012 Shoulder & Elbow Roundup. 360. looks at: platelet-rich fibrin matrix and the torn rotator cuff; ultrasound, trainees, and ducks out of water; the torn rotator cuff and conservative treatment; Bankart repair and subsequent degenerative change; proprioception after shoulder replacement; surgery for a terrible triad, with reasonable short-term results; and the WORC Index

The February 2014 Shoulder & Elbow Roundup. 360 . looks at: whether arthroscopic acromioplasty is a cost-effective intervention; shockwave therapy in cuff tear; whether microfracture relieves short-term pain in cuff repair; the promising early results from L-PRF augmented cuff repairs; rehabilitation following cuff repair; supination strength following biceps tendon rupture; whether longer is better in humeral components; fatty degeneration in a rodent model; and the controversial acromioclavicular joint dislocation

The February 2013 Shoulder & Elbow Roundup. 360 . looks at: whether we should replace fractured shoulders; the limited evidence for shoulder fractures; cuffs and early physio; matrix proteins and cuff tears; long-term SLAP tear outcomes; suture anchors; recurrent Bankart repairs; and acromial morphology and calcific tendonitis

The December 2012 Shoulder & Elbow Roundup. 360. looks at: whether allograft is biomechanically superior in large Hill-Sachs defects; glenoid bone loss in shoulder dislocators; repairing irreparable cuff tears; acromioclavicular joint injuries; whether more radiographs equals more surgery; whether reverse TSR is cheaper than hemiarthroplasty; autologous chondrocyte implantation in the shoulder; and fracture of the clavicle

The June 2012 Shoulder & Elbow Roundup. 360. looks at: reverse shoulder replacement; torn rotator cuffs and platelet-rich fibrin; rotator cuff repair; frozen shoulder; whether an arthroscopic rotator cuff repair actually heals; the torn rotator cuff’s effect on activities of daily living; subacromial impingement; how to improve the reliability of the Constant-Murley score; and failure of the Neer modification of an open Bankart procedure.

The April 2014 Shoulder & Elbow Roundup. 360 . looks at: arthroscopic capsular release successful after six months; MCIC in cuff surgery; analgesia following arthroscopic cuff repair; platelet-rich fibrin; and cuff tear and suprascapular nerve neuropathy?

The October 2012 Shoulder & Elbow Roundup. 360. looks at: fast-absorbing suture anchors for use in shoulder labral tears; double-row rotator cuff repair; degenerate massive rotator cuff tears addressed with partial repair; open and arthroscopic stabilisation of Bankart lesions; predicting the risk of revision humeral head replacement; arthroscopic treatment for frozen shoulder; and long-term follow-up of the Bristow-Latarjet procedure

Post-traumatic elbow stiffness is a disabling condition that remains challenging for upper limb surgeons. Open elbow arthrolysis is commonly used for the treatment of stiff elbow when conservative therapy has failed. Multiple questions commonly arise from surgeons who deal with this disease. These include whether the patient has post-traumatic stiff elbow, how to evaluate the problem, when surgery is appropriate, how to perform an excellent arthrolysis, what the optimal postoperative rehabilitation is, and how to prevent or reduce the incidence of complications. Following these questions, this review provides an update and overview of post-traumatic elbow stiffness with respect to the diagnosis, preoperative evaluation, arthrolysis strategies, postoperative rehabilitation, and prevention of complications, aiming to provide a complete diagnosis and treatment path. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-9:576–584

We undertook this study to determine the minimum amount of coronoid necessary to stabilise an otherwise intact elbow joint. Regan–Morrey types II and III, plus medial and lateral oblique coronoid fractures, collectively termed type IV fractures, were simulated in nine fresh cadavers. An electromagnetic tracking system defined the three-dimensional stability of the ulna relative to the humerus. The coronoid surface area accounts for 59% of the anterior articulation. Alteration in valgus, internal and external rotation occurred only with a type III coronoid fracture, accounting for 68% of the coronoid and 40% of the entire articular surface. A type II fracture removed 42% of the coronoid articulation and 25% of the entire articular surface but was associated with valgus and external rotational changes only when the radial head was removed, thereby removing 67% of the articular surface.

We conclude that all type III fractures, as defined here, are unstable, even with intact ligaments and a radial head. However, a type II deficiency is stable unless the radial head is removed. Our study suggests that isolated medial-oblique or lateral-oblique fractures, and even a type II fracture with intact ligaments and a functional radial head, can be clinically stable, which is consistent with clinical observation.

The February 2024 Shoulder & Elbow Roundup. 360. looks at: Does indomethacin prevent heterotopic ossification following elbow fracture fixation?; Arthroscopic capsular shift in atraumatic shoulder joint instability; Ultrasound-guided lavage with corticosteroid injection versus sham; Combined surgical and exercise-based interventions following primary traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation: a systematic review and meta-analysis; Are vascularized fibula autografts a long-lasting reconstruction after intercalary resection of the humerus for primary bone tumours?; Anatomical versus reverse total shoulder arthroplasty with limited forward elevation; Tension band or plate fixation for simple displaced olecranon fractures?; Is long-term follow-up and monitoring in shoulder and elbow arthroplasty needed?

The December 2023 Shoulder & Elbow Roundup. 360. looks at: Clavicle fractures: is the evidence changing practice?; Humeral shaft fractures, and another meta-analysis…let’s wait for the trials now!; Hemiarthroplasty or total elbow arthroplasty for distal humeral fractures…what does the registry say?; What to do with a first-time shoulder dislocation?; Deprivation indices and minimal clinically important difference for patient-reported outcomes after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair; Prospective randomized clinical trial of arthroscopic repair versus debridement for partial subscapularis tears; Long-term follow-up following closed reduction and early movement for simple dislocation of the elbow; Sternoclavicular joint reconstruction for traumatic acute and chronic anterior and posterior instability

The April 2023 Shoulder & Elbow Roundup. 360. looks at: Arthroscopic Bankart repair in athletes: in it for the long run?; Functional outcomes and the Wrightington classification of elbow fracture-dislocations; Hemiarthroplasty or ORIF intra-articular distal humerus fractures in older patients; Return to sport after total shoulder arthroplasty and hemiarthroplasty; Readmissions after shoulder arthroplasty; Arthroscopic Bankart repair in the longer term; Bankart repair with(out) remplissage or the Latarjet procedure? A systematic review and meta-analysis; Regaining motion among patients with shoulder pathology: are all exercises equal?

Aims. This study aimed to determine the minimal detectable change (MDC), minimal clinically important difference (MCID), and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) under distribution- and anchor-based methods for the Mayo Elbow Performance Index (MEPI) and range of movement (ROM) after open elbow arthrolysis (OEA). We also assessed the proportion of patients who achieved MCID and SCB; and identified the factors associated with achieving MCID. Methods. A cohort of 265 patients treated by OEA were included. The MEPI and ROM were evaluated at baseline and at two-year follow-up. Distribution-based MDC was calculated with confidence intervals (CIs) reflecting 80% (MDC 80), 90% (MDC 90), and 95% (MDC 95) certainty, and MCID with changes from baseline to follow-up. Anchor-based MCID (anchored to somewhat satisfied) and SCB (very satisfied) were calculated using a five-level Likert satisfaction scale. Multivariate logistic regression of factors affecting MCID achievement was performed. Results. The MDC increased substantially based on selected CIs (MDC 80, MDC 90, and MDC 95), ranging from 5.0 to 7.6 points for the MEPI, and from 8.2° to 12.5° for ROM. The MCID of the MEPI were 8.3 points under distribution-based and 12.2 points under anchor-based methods; distribution- and anchor-based MCID of ROM were 14.1° and 25.0°. The SCB of the MEPI and ROM were 17.3 points and 43.4°, respectively. The proportion of the patients who attained anchor-based MCID for the MEPI and ROM were 74.0% and 94.7%, respectively; furthermore, 64.2% and 86.8% attained SCB. Non-dominant arm (p = 0.022), higher preoperative MEPI rating (p < 0.001), and postoperative visual analogue scale pain score (p < 0.001) were independent predictors of not achieving MCID for the MEPI, while atraumatic causes (p = 0.040) and higher preoperative ROM (p = 0.005) were independent risk factors for ROM. Conclusion. In patients undergoing OEA, the MCID for the increased MEPI is 12.2 points and 25° increased ROM. The SCB is 17.3 points and 43.3°, respectively. Future studies using the MEPI and ROM to assess OEA outcomes should report not only statistical significance but also clinical importance. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(2):366–372

The October 2023 Shoulder & Elbow Roundup. 360. looks at: Arthroscopic capsular shift surgery in patients with atraumatic shoulder joint instability: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial; Superior capsular reconstruction partially restores native glenohumeral loads in a dynamic model; Gene expression in glenoid articular cartilage varies in acute instability, chronic instability, and osteoarthritis; Intra-articular injection versus interscalene brachial plexus block for acute-phase postoperative pain management after arthroscopic shoulder surgery; Level of pain catastrophizing rehab in subacromial impingement: secondary analyses from a pragmatic randomized controlled trial (the SExSI Trial); Anterosuperior versus deltopectoral approach for primary reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a study of 3,902 cases from the Dutch National Arthroplasty Registry with a minimum follow-up of five years; Assessment of progression and clinical relevance of stress-shielding around press-fit radial head arthroplasty: a comparative study of two implants; A number of modifiable and non-modifiable factors increase the risk for elbow medial ulnar collateral ligament injury in baseball players: a systematic review

Aims. Heterotopic ossification (HO) is a common complication after elbow trauma and can cause severe upper limb disability. Although multiple prognostic factors have been reported to be associated with the development of post-traumatic HO, no model has yet been able to combine these predictors more succinctly to convey prognostic information and medical measures to patients. Therefore, this study aimed to identify prognostic factors leading to the formation of HO after surgery for elbow trauma, and to establish and validate a nomogram to predict the probability of HO formation in such particular injuries. Methods. This multicentre case-control study comprised 200 patients with post-traumatic elbow HO and 229 patients who had elbow trauma but without HO formation between July 2019 and December 2020. Features possibly associated with HO formation were obtained. The least absolute shrinkage and selection operator regression model was used to optimize feature selection. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was applied to build the new nomogram: the Shanghai post-Traumatic Elbow Heterotopic Ossification Prediction model (STEHOP). STEHOP was validated by concordance index (C-index) and calibration plot. Internal validation was conducted using bootstrapping validation. Results. Male sex, obesity, open wound, dislocations, late definitive surgical treatment, and lack of use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs were identified as adverse predictors and incorporated to construct the STEHOP model. It displayed good discrimination with a C-index of 0.80 (95% confidence interval 0.75 to 0.84). A high C-index value of 0.77 could still be reached in the internal validation. The calibration plot showed good agreement between nomogram prediction and observed outcomes. Conclusion. The newly developed STEHOP model is a valid and convenient instrument to predict HO formation after surgery for elbow trauma. It could assist clinicians in counselling patients regarding treatment expectations and therapeutic choices. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(8):963–971

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. This study aimed to answer the following questions: do 3D-printed models lead to a more accurate recognition of the pattern of complex fractures of the elbow?; do 3D-printed models lead to a more reliable recognition of the pattern of these injuries?; and do junior surgeons benefit more from 3D-printed models than senior surgeons?. Methods. A total of 15 orthopaedic trauma surgeons (seven juniors, eight seniors) evaluated 20 complex elbow fractures for their overall pattern (i.e. varus posterior medial rotational injury, terrible triad injury, radial head fracture with posterolateral dislocation, anterior (trans-)olecranon fracture-dislocation, posterior (trans-)olecranon fracture-dislocation) and their specific characteristics. First, fractures were assessed based on radiographs and 2D and 3D CT scans; and in a subsequent round, one month later, with additional 3D-printed models. Diagnostic accuracy (acc) and inter-surgeon reliability (κ) were determined for each assessment. Results. Accuracy significantly improved with 3D-printed models for the whole group on pattern recognition (acc. 2D/3D. = 0.62 vs acc. 3Dprint. = 0.69; Δacc = 0.07 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.00 to 0.14); p = 0.025). A significant improvement was also seen in reliability for pattern recognition with the additional 3D-printed models (κ. 2D/3D. = 0.41 (moderate) vs κ. 3Dprint. = 0.59 (moderate); Δκ = 0.18 (95% CI 0.14 to 0.22); p ≤ 0.001). Accuracy was comparable between junior and senior surgeons with the 3D-printed model (acc. junior. = 0.70 vs acc. senior. = 0.68; Δacc = -0.02 (95% CI -0.17 to 0.13); p = 0.904). Reliability was also comparable between junior and senior surgeons without the 3D-printed model (κ. junior. = 0.39 (fair) vs κ. senior. = 0.43 (moderate); Δκ = 0.03 (95% CI -0.03 to 0.10); p = 0.318). However, junior surgeons showed greater improvement regarding reliability than seniors with 3D-printed models (κ. junior. = 0.65 (substantial) vs κ. senior. = 0.54 (moderate); Δκ = 0.11 (95% CI 0.04 to 0.18); p = 0.002). Conclusion. The use of 3D-printed models significantly improved the accuracy and reliability of recognizing the pattern of complex fractures of the elbow. However, the current long printing time and non-reusable materials could limit the usefulness of 3D-printed models in clinical practice. They could be suitable as a reusable tool for teaching residents. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(1):56–63