Aims. Body exhaust suits or surgical helmet systems (colloquially, ‘space suits’) are frequently used in many forms of arthroplasty, with the aim of providing personal protection to surgeons and, perhaps, reducing periprosthetic joint infections, although this has not consistently been borne out in systematic reviews and registry studies. To date, no large-scale study has investigated whether this is applicable to shoulder arthroplasty. We used the New Zealand Joint Registry to assess whether the use of surgical helmet systems was associated with lower all-cause revision or revision for deep infection in primary shoulder arthroplasties. Methods. We analyzed 16,000 shoulder arthroplasties (hemiarthroplasties, anatomical, and reverse geometry prostheses) recorded on the New Zealand Joint Registry from its inception in 2000 to the present day. We assessed patient factors including age, BMI, sex, and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, as well as whether or not the operation took place in a laminar flow operating theatre. Results. A total of 2,728 operations (17%) took place using surgical helmet systems. Patient cohorts were broadly similar in terms of indication for surgery (osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, fractures) and medical comorbidities (age and sex). There were 842 revisions (5% of cases) with just 98 for deep infection (0.6% of all cases or 11.6% of the revisions). There were no differences in all-cause revisions or revision for deep infection between the surgical helmet systems and conventional gowns (p = 0.893 and p = 0.911, respectively). Conclusion. We found no evidence that wearing a surgical helmet system reduces the incidence of periprosthetic joint infection in any kind of primary shoulder arthroplasty. We acknowledge the limitations of this registry study and accept that there may be other benefits in terms of personal protection, comfort, or visibility. However, given their financial and ecological footprint, they should be used judiciously in shoulder surgery. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(10):894–897

We report our experience of staged revision surgery for the treatment of infected total elbow arthroplasty (TEA). Between 1998 and 2010 a consecutive series of 33 patients (34 TEAs) underwent a first-stage procedure with the intention to proceed to second-stage procedure when the infection had been controlled. A single first-stage procedure with removal of the components and cement was undertaken for 29 TEAs (85%), followed by the insertion of antibiotic-impregnated cement beads, and five (15%) required two or more first-stage procedures. The most common organism isolated was coagulase-negative Staphylococcus in 21 TEAs (62%).

A second-stage procedure was performed for 26 TEAs (76%); seven patients (seven TEAs, 21%) had a functional resection arthroplasty with antibiotic beads in situ and had no further surgery, one had a persistent discharge preventing further surgery.

There were three recurrent infections (11.5%) in those patients who underwent a second-stage procedure. The infection presented at a mean of eight months (5 to 10) post-operatively. The mean Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS) in those who underwent a second stage revision without recurrent infection was 81.1 (65 to 95).

Staged revision surgery is successful in the treatment of patients with an infected TEA and is associated with a low rate of recurrent infection. However, when infection does occur, this study would suggest that it becomes apparent within ten months of the second stage procedure.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:1681–6.

Periprosthetic joint infection represents a devastating complication after total elbow arthroplasty. Several measures can be implemented before, during, and after surgery to decrease infection rates, which exceed 5%. Debridement with antibiotics and implant retention has been reported to be successful in less than one-third of acute infections, but still plays a role. For elbows with well-fixed implants, staged retention seems to be equally successful as the more commonly performed two-stage reimplantation, both with a success rate of 70% to 80%. Permanent resection or even amputation are occasionally considered. Not uncommonly, a second-stage reimplantation requires complex reconstruction of the skeleton with allografts, and the extensor mechanism may also be deficient. Further developments are needed to improve our management of infection after elbow arthroplasty. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(11):1321–1326

Aims. The current evidence comparing the two most common approaches for reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA), the deltopectoral and anterosuperior approach, is limited. This study aims to compare the rate of loosening, instability, and implant survival between the two approaches for rTSA using data from the Dutch National Arthroplasty Registry with a minimum follow-up of five years. Methods. All patients in the registry who underwent a primary rTSA between January 2014 and December 2016 using an anterosuperior or deltopectoral approach were included, with a minimum follow-up of five years. Cox and logistic regression models were used to assess the association between the approach and the implant survival, instability, and glenoid loosening, independent of confounders. Results. In total, 3,902 rTSAs were included. A deltopectoral approach was used in 54% (2,099/3,902) and an anterosuperior approach in 46% (1,803/3,902). Overall, the mean age in the cohort was 75 years (50 to 96) and the most common indication for rTSA was cuff tear arthropathy (35%; n = 1,375), followed by osteoarthritis (29%; n = 1,126), acute fracture (13%; n = 517), post-traumatic sequelae (10%; n = 398), and an irreparable cuff rupture (5%; n = 199). The two high-volume centres performed the anterosuperior approach more often compared to the medium- and low-volume centres (p < 0.001). Of the 3,902 rTSAs, 187 were revised (5%), resulting in a five-year survival of 95.4% (95% confidence interval 94.7 to 96.0; 3,137 at risk). The most common reason for revision was a periprosthetic joint infection (35%; n = 65), followed by instability (25%; n = 46) and loosening (25%; n = 46). After correcting for relevant confounders, the revision rate for glenoid loosening, instability, and the overall implant survival did not differ significantly between the two approaches (p = 0.494, p = 0.826, and p = 0.101, respectively). Conclusion. The surgical approach used for rTSA did not influence the overall implant survival or the revision rate for instability or glenoid loosening. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(9):1000–1006

Aims. The aim of this study was to report the incidence of implant-related complications, further operations, and their influence on the outcome in a series of patients who underwent primary reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA). Methods. The prospectively collected clinical and radiological data of 797 patients who underwent 854 primary RTSAs between January 2005 and August 2018 were analyzed. The hypothesis was that the presence of complications would adversely affect the outcome. Further procedures were defined as all necessary operations, including reoperations without change of components, and partial or total revisions. The clinical outcome was evaluated using the absolute and relative Constant Scores (aCS, rCS), the Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV) scores, range of motion, and pain. Results. The overall surgical site complication rate was 22% (188 complications) in 152 patients (156 RTSAs; 18%) at a mean follow-up of 46 months (0 to 169). The most common complications were acromial fracture (in 44 patients, 45 RTSAs; 5.3%), glenoid loosening (in 37 patients, 37 RTSAs; 4.3%), instability (in 23 patients, 23 RTSAs; 2.7%), humeral fracture or loosening of the humeral component (in 21 patients, 21 RTSAs; 2.5%), and periprosthetic infection (in 14 patients, 14 RTSAs; 1.6%). Further surgery was undertaken in 79 patients (82 RTSAs) requiring a total of 135 procedures (41% revision rate). The most common indications for further surgery were glenoid-related complications (in 23 patients, 23 RTSAs; 2.7%), instability (in 15 patients, 15 RTSAs; 1.8%), acromial fractures (in 11 patients, 11 RTSAs; 1.3%), pain and severe scarring (in 13 patients, 13 RTSAs; 1.5%), and infection (in 8 patients, 8 RTSAs; 0.9%). Patients who had a complication had significantly worse mean rCS scores (57% (SD 24%) vs 81% (SD 16%)) and SSV scores (53% (SD 27%) vs 80% (SD 20%)) compared with those without a complication. If revision surgery was necessary, the outcome was even further compromised (mean rCS score: 51% (SD 23%) vs 63% (SD 23%); SSV score: 4% (SD 25%) vs 61% (SD 27%). Conclusion. Although the indications for, and use of, a RTSA are increasing, it remains a demanding surgical procedure. We found that about one in five patients had a complication and one in ten required further surgery. Both adversely affected the outcome. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(3):401–407

Aims. Corticosteroid injections are often used to manage glenohumeral arthritis in patients who may be candidates for future total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) or reverse shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA). In the conservative management of these patients, corticosteroid injections are often provided for symptomatic relief. The purpose of this study was to determine if the timing of corticosteroid injections prior to TSA or rTSA is associated with changes in rates of revision and periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) following these procedures. Methods. Data were collected from a national insurance database from January 2006 to December 2017. Patients who underwent shoulder corticosteroid injection within one year prior to ipsilateral TSA or rTSA were identified and stratified into the following cohorts: < three months, three to six months, six to nine months, and nine to 12 months from time of corticosteroid injection to TSA or rTSA. A control cohort with no corticosteroid injection within one year prior to TSA or rTSA was used for comparison. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to determine the association between specific time intervals and outcomes. Results. In total, 4,252 patients were included in this study. Among those, 1,632 patients (38.4%) received corticosteroid injection(s) within one year prior to TSA or rTSA and 2,620 patients (61.6%) did not. On multivariate analysis, patients who received corticosteroid injection < three months prior to TSA or rTSA were at significantly increased risk for revision (odds ratio (OR) 2.61 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.77 to 3.28); p < 0.001) when compared with the control cohort. However, there was no significant increase in revision risk for all other timing interval cohorts. Notably, Charlson Comorbidity Index ≥ 3 was a significant independent risk factor for all-cause revision (OR 4.00 (95% CI 1.40 to 8.92); p = 0.036). Conclusion. There is a time-dependent relationship between the preoperative timing of corticosteroid injection and the incidence of all-cause revision surgery following TSA or rTSA. This analysis suggests that an interval of at least three months should be maintained between corticosteroid injection and TSA or rTSA to minimize risks of subsequent revision surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(5):620–626

Aims. The purpose of this study was to compare clinical results, long-term survival, and complication rates of stemless shoulder prosthesis with stemmed anatomical shoulder prostheses for treatment of osteoarthritis and to analyze radiological bone changes around the implants during follow-up. Methods. A total of 161 patients treated with either a stemmed or a stemless shoulder arthroplasty for primary osteoarthritis of the shoulder were evaluated with a mean follow-up of 118 months (102 to 158). The Constant score (CS), the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score, and active range of motion (ROM) were recorded. Radiological analysis for bone adaptations was performed by plain radiographs. A Kaplan-Meier survivorship analysis was calculated and complications were noted. Results. The ROM (p < 0.001), CS (p < 0.001), and DASH score (p < 0.001) showed significant improvements after shoulder arthroplasty for both implants. There were no differences between the groups treated with stemmed or stemless shoulder prosthesis with respect to the mean CS (79.2 (35 to 118) vs 74.4 (31 to 99); p = 0.519) and DASH scores (11.4 (8 to 29) vs 13.2 (7 to 23); p = 0.210). The ten-year unadjusted cumulative survival rate was 95.3% for the stemmed anatomical shoulder prosthesis and 91.5% for the stemless shoulder prosthesis and did not differ between the treatment groups (p = 0.251). The radiological evaluation of the humeral components in both groups did not show loosening of the humeral implant. The main reason for revision for each type of arthroplasties were complications related to the glenoid. Conclusion. The use of anatomical stemless shoulder prosthesis yielded good and reliable results and did not differ from anatomical stemmed shoulder prosthesis over a mean period of ten years. The differences in periprosthetic humeral bone adaptations between both implants have no clinical impact during the follow-up. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(7):1292–1300

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.

Aims

The aim of this study is to report the implant survival and factors associated with revision of total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) using data from the Dutch national registry.

Aims

Both anatomical and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA and rTSA) provide functional improvements. A reported benefit of aTSA is better range of motion (ROM). However, it is not clear which procedure provides better outcomes in patients with limited foward elevation (FE). The aim of this study was to compare the outcome of aTSA and rTSA in patients with glenohumeral osteoarthritis (OA), an intact rotator cuff, and limited FE.

Aims

The liner design is a key determinant of the constraint of a reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA). The aim of this study was to compare the degree of constraint of rTSA liners between different implant systems.

Aims

The aim of this study was to analyze how proximal radial neck resorption (PRNR) starts and progresses radiologically in two types of press-fit radial head arthroplasties (RHAs), and to investigate its clinical relevance.

Aims

This study aimed to assess the impact of using the metal-augmented glenoid baseplate (AGB) on improving clinical and radiological outcomes, as well as reducing complications, in patients with superior glenoid wear undergoing reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA).

Aims

Metal and ceramic humeral head bearing surfaces are available choices in anatomical shoulder arthroplasties. Wear studies have shown superior performance of ceramic heads, however comparison of clinical outcomes according to bearing surface in total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) and hemiarthroplasty (HA) is limited. This study aimed to compare the rates of revision and reoperation following metal and ceramic humeral head TSA and HA using data from the National Joint Registry (NJR), which collects data from England, Wales, Northern Ireland, Isle of Man and the States of Guernsey.

Aims

We sought to compare functional outcomes and survival between non-smokers, former smokers, and current smokers who underwent anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA) in a large cohort of patients.

Aims

Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) can be used in complex cases when the glenoid requires reconstruction. In this study, a baseplate with composite bone autograft and a central trabecular titanium peg was implanted, and its migration was assessed for two years postoperatively using radiostereometric analysis (RSA).

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.

Aims

The aim of this study was to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) using small and standard baseplates in Asian patients, and to investigate the impact of a mismatch in the sizes of the glenoid and the baseplate on the outcomes.

Aims

There are concerns regarding complications and longevity of total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) in young patients, and the few previous publications are mainly limited to reports on linked elbow devices. We investigated the clinical outcome of unlinked TEA for patients aged less than 50 years with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

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. Patients and Methods. We reviewed all revision RSAs performed for a failed primary RSA between 2006 and 2012, excluding patients with a follow-up of less than two years. A total of 27 revision RSAs were included in the study. The mean age of the patients at the time of revision was 70 years (58 to 82). Of the 27 patients, 14 (52% were female). The mean follow-up was 4.4 years (2 to 10). Results. Six patients (22%) developed complications requiring further revision surgery, at a mean of 1.7 years (0.1 to 5.3) postoperatively. The indication for further revision was dislocation in two, glenoid loosening in one, fracture of the humeral component in one, disassociation of the glenosphere in one, and infection in one. The five-year survival free of further revision was 85%. Five additional RSAs developed complications that did not need surgery, including dislocation in three and periprosthetic fracture in two. Overall, patients who did not require further revision had excellent pain relief, and significant improvements in elevation and external rotation of the shoulder (p < 0.01). The mean postoperative American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), and simple shoulder test (SST) scores were 66 and 7, respectively. Radiological results were available in 26 patients (96.3%) at a mean of 4.3 years (1.5 to 9.5). At the most recent follow-up, six patients (23%) had glenoid lucency, which were classified as grade III or higher in three (12%). Smokers had a significantly increased risk of glenoid lucency (p < 0.01). Conclusion. Revision RSA, when used to salvage a failed primary RSA, can be a successful procedure. At intermediate follow-up, survival rates are reasonable, but dislocation and glenoid lucency remain a concern, particularly in smokers. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:1493–98