The sternoclavicular joint (SCJ) is a pivotal articulation in the linked system of the upper limb girdle, providing load-bearing in compression while resisting displacement in tension or distraction at the manubrium sterni. The SCJ and acromioclavicular joint (ACJ) both have a small surface area of contact protected by an intra-articular fibrocartilaginous disc and are supported by strong extrinsic and intrinsic capsular ligaments. The function of load-sharing in the upper limb by bulky periscapular and thoracobrachial muscles is extremely important to the longevity of both joints. Ligamentous and capsular laxity changes with age, exposing both joints to greater strain, which may explain the rising incidence of arthritis in both with age. The incidence of arthritis in the SCJ is less than that in the ACJ, suggesting that the extrinsic ligaments of the SCJ provide greater stability than the coracoclavicular ligaments of the ACJ.

Instability of the SCJ is rare and can be difficult to distinguish from medial clavicular physeal or metaphyseal fracture-separation: cross-sectional imaging is often required. The distinction is important because the treatment options and outcomes of treatment are dissimilar, whereas the treatment and outcomes of ACJ separation and fracture of the lateral clavicle can be similar. Proper recognition and treatment of traumatic instability is vital as these injuries may be life-threatening. Instability of the SCJ does not always require surgical intervention. An accurate diagnosis is required before surgery can be considered, and we recommend the use of the Stanmore instability triangle. Most poor outcomes result from a failure to recognise the underlying pathology.

There is a natural reluctance for orthopaedic surgeons to operate in this area owing to unfamiliarity with, and the close proximity of, the related vascular structures, but the interposed sternohyoid and sternothyroid muscles are rarely injured and provide a clear boundary to the medial retroclavicular space, as well as an anatomical barrier to unsafe intervention.

This review presents current concepts of instability of the SCJ, describes the relevant surgical anatomy, provides a framework for diagnosis and management, including physiotherapy, and discusses the technical challenges of operative intervention.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:721–31.

We evaluated the biomechanical properties of two different methods of fixation for unstable fractures of the proximal humerus. Biomechanical testing of the two groups, locking plate alone (LP), and locking plate with a fibular strut graft (LPSG), was performed using seven pairs of human cadaveric humeri. Cyclical loads between 10 N and 80 N at 5 Hz were applied for 1 000 000 cycles. Immediately after cycling, an increasing axial load was applied at a rate of displacement of 5 mm/min. The displacement of the construct, maximum failure load, stiffness and mode of failure were compared.

The displacement was significantly less in the LPSG group than in the LP group (p = 0.031). All maximum failure loads and measures of stiffness in the LPSG group were significantly higher than those in the LP group (p = 0.024 and p = 0.035, respectively). In the LP group, varus collapse and plate bending were seen. In the LPSG group, the humeral head cut out and the fibular strut grafts fractured. No broken plates or screws were seen in either group.

We conclude that strut graft augmentation significantly increases both the maximum failure load and the initial stiffness of this construct compared with a locking plate alone.

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.

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.

Sixteen patients who underwent a revision operation for nonunion of fractures of the distal humerus following previous internal fixation were reviewed at a mean follow-up of 39 months (8 to 69).

The Mayo elbow performance score was excellent in 11, good in two, fair in two and poor in one. In 15 patients union was achieved and in one with an infected nonunion a subsequent bone graft was necessary in order to obtain union.

Age, gender, a history of smoking, mechanism of the injury and the AO classification of the initial fracture did not correlate with the development of nonunion. In 12 patients (75%), the initial fixation was assessed as being suboptimal. The primary surgery was regarded as adequate in only three patients. Our findings suggest that the most important determinant of nonunion of a distal humeral fracture after surgery is the adequacy of fixation.