Aims

α-defensin is a biomarker which has been described as having a high degree of accuracy in the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Current meta-analyses are based on the α-defensin laboratory-based immunoassay rather than the quick on-table lateral flow test kit. This study is the first meta-analysis to compare the accuracy of the α-defensin laboratory-based immunoassay and the lateral flow test kit for the diagnosis of PJI.

Aims

Patients with a failed reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) have limited salvage options. The aim of this study was to determine the outcome of revision RSA when used as a salvage procedure for a failed primary RSA.

Aims

Glenoid bone loss can be a challenging problem when revising a shoulder arthroplasty. Precise pre-operative planning based on plain radiographs or CT scans is essential. We have investigated a new radiological classification system to describe the degree of medialisation of the bony glenoid and that will indicate the amount of bone potentially available for supporting a glenoid component. It depends on the relationship between the most medial part of the articular surface of the glenoid with the base of the coracoid process and the spinoglenoid notch: it classifies the degree of bone loss into three types.

It also attempts to predict the type of glenoid reconstruction that may be possible (impaction bone grafting, structural grafting or simple non-augmented arthroplasty) and gives guidance about whether a pre-operative CT scan is indicated.

The October 2015 Shoulder & Elbow Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Culture time important in propionibacterium acnes; Microvascularisation of the cuff footprint; Degenerative cuff tears: evidence for repair; Middle ground in distal humeral fractures?; Haste needed in elbow heterotopic ossification; Iatrogenic frozen shoulder; Salvage of failed humeral fixation

The June 2013 Shoulder & Elbow Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: whether suture anchors are still the gold standard; infection and revision elbow arthroplasty; the variable success of elbow replacements; sliding knots; neurologic cuff pain and the suprascapular nerve; lies, damn lies and statistics; osteoarthritis; and one- or two-stage treatment for the infected shoulder revision.

Instability after arthroplasty of the shoulder is difficult to correct surgically. Soft-tissue procedures and revision surgery using unconstrained anatomical components are associated with a high rate of failure. The purpose of this study was to determine the results of revision of an unstable anatomical shoulder arthroplasty to a reverse design prosthesis. Between 2004 and 2007, 33 unstable anatomical shoulder arthroplasties were revised to a reverse design. The mean age of the patients was 71 years (53 to 86) and their mean follow-up was 42 months (25 to 71). The mean time to revision was 26 months (4 to 164). Pain scores improved significantly (pre-operative visual analogue scale (VAS) of 7.2 (sd 1.6); most recent VAS 2.2 (sd 1.9); p = 0.001). There was a statistically significant increase in mean active forward elevation from 40.2° (sd 27.3) to 97.0° (sd 36.2) (p = 0.001). There was no significant difference in internal (p = 0.93) or external rotation (p = 0.40). Radiological findings included notching in five shoulders (15%) and heterotopic ossification of the inferior capsular region in three (9%). At the last follow-up 31 shoulders (94%) were stable. The remaining two shoulders dislocated at 2.5 weeks and three months post-operatively, respectively. According to the Neer rating system, there were 13 excellent (40%), ten satisfactory (30%) and ten unsatisfactory results (30%). Revision of hemiarthroplasty or anatomical total shoulder replacement for instability using a reverse design prosthesis gives good short-term results.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:668–72.

The April 2013 Shoulder & Elbow Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: biceps, pressure and instability; chronic acromio-clavicular joint instability; depression and shoulder pain; shoulder replacement and transfusion; cuff integrity and function; iatropathic plexus injury; the accuracy of acromio-clavicular joint injection; and tennis as a risk factor for tennis elbow.

While frequently discussed as a standard treatment for the management of an infected shoulder replacement, there is little information on the outcome of two-stage re-implantation.

We examined the outcome of 17 consecutive patients (19 shoulders) who were treated between 1995 and 2004 with a two-stage re-implantation for the treatment of a deep-infection after shoulder replacement. All 19 shoulders were followed for a minimum of two years or until the time of further revision surgery. The mean clinical follow-up was for 35 months (24 to 80). The mean radiological follow-up was 27 months (7 to 80). There were two excellent results, four satisfactory and 13 unsatisfactory. In 12 of the 19 shoulders (63%) infection was considered to be eradicated. The mean pain score improved from 4.2 (3 to 5 (out of 5)) to 1.8 (1 to 4). The mean elevation improved from 42° (0° to 140°) to 89° (0° to 165°), mean external rotation from 30° (0° to 90°) to 43° (0° to 90°), and mean internal rotation from the sacrum to L5. There were 14 complications.

Our study suggests that two-stage re-implantation for an infected shoulder replacement is associated with a high rate of unsatisfactory results, marginal success at eradicating infection and a high complication rate.

There is little information about the management of peri-prosthetic fracture of the humerus after total shoulder replacement (TSR). This is a retrospective review of 22 patients who underwent a revision of their original shoulder replacement for peri-prosthetic fracture of the humerus with bone loss and/or loose components. There were 20 women and two men with a mean age of 75 years (61 to 90) and a mean follow-up 42 months (12 to 91): 16 of these had undergone a previous revision TSR. Of the 22 patients, 12 were treated with a long-stemmed humeral component that bypassed the fracture. All their fractures united after a mean of 27 weeks (13 to 94). Eight patients underwent resection of the proximal humerus with endoprosthetic replacement to the level of the fracture. Two patients were managed with a clam-shell prosthesis that retained the original components. The mean Oxford shoulder score (OSS) of the original TSRs before peri-prosthetic fracture was 33 (14 to 48). The mean OSS after revision for fracture was 25 (9 to 31). Kaplan-Meier survival using re-intervention for any reason as the endpoint was 91% (95% confidence interval (CI) 68 to 98) and 60% (95% CI 30 to 80) at one and five years, respectively.

There were two revisions for dislocation of the humeral head, one open reduction for modular humeral component dissociation, one internal fixation for nonunion, one trimming of a prominent screw and one re-cementation for aseptic loosening complicated by infection, ultimately requiring excision arthroplasty. Two patients sustained nerve palsies.

Revision TSR after a peri-prosthetic humeral fracture associated with bone loss and/or loose components is a salvage procedure that can provide a stable platform for elbow and hand function. Good rates of union can be achieved using a stem that bypasses the fracture. There is a high rate of complications and function is not as good as with the original replacement.

Glenoid replacement is technically challenging. Removal of a cemented glenoid component often results in a large osseous defect which makes the immediate introduction of a revision prosthesis almost impossible. We describe a two-stage revision procedure using a reversed shoulder prosthesis. Freeze-dried allograft with platelet-derived growth factor was used to fill the glenoid defect. Radiological incorporation of the allograft was seen and its consistency allowed the placement of a screwed glenoid component. There were no signs of new mature bone formation on histological examination.

The addition of platelet-derived growth factor to the allograft seems to contribute to an increase in incorporation and hardness, but does not promote the growth of new bone.

Between 1976 and 2004, 38 revision arthroplasties (35 patients) were performed for aseptic loosening of the humeral component. The mean interval from primary arthroplasty to revision was 7.1 years (0.4 to 16.6). A total of 35 shoulders (32 patients) were available for review at a mean follow-up of seven years (2 to 19.3).

Pre-operatively, 34 patients (97%) had moderate or severe pain; at final follow-up, 29 (83%) had no or only mild pain (p < 0.0001). The mean active abduction improved from 88° to 107° (p < 0.01); and the mean external rotation from 37° to 46° (p = 0.27). Excellent or satisfactory results were achieved in 25 patients (71%) according to the modified Neer rating system. Humeral components were cemented in 29, with ingrowth implants used in nine cases. There were 19 of standard length and 17 were longer (two were custom replacements and are not included). Bone grafting was required for defects in 11 humeri. Only two glenoid components were left unrevised. Intra-operative complications included cement extrusion in eight cases, fracture of the shaft of the humerus is two and of the tuberosity in four. There were four re-operations, one for recurrent humeral loosening, with 89% survival free of re-operations at ten years.

Revision surgery for aseptic loosening of the humeral component provides reliable pain relief and modest improvement of movement, although there is a substantial risk of intra-operative complications. Revision to a total shoulder replacement gives better results than to a hemiarthroplasty.