Aims. To evaluate if union of clavicle fractures can be predicted at six weeks post-injury by the presence of bridging callus on ultrasound. Methods. Adult patients managed nonoperatively with a displaced mid-shaft clavicle were recruited prospectively. Ultrasound evaluation of the fracture was undertaken to determine if sonographic bridging callus was present. Clinical risk factors at six weeks were used to stratify patients at high risk of nonunion with a combination of Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire (QuickDASH) ≥ 40, fracture movement on examination, or absence of callus on radiograph. Results. A total of 112 patients completed follow-up at six months with a nonunion incidence of 16.7% (n = 18/112). Sonographic bridging callus was detected in 62.5% (n = 70/112) of the cohort at six weeks post-injury. If present, union occurred in 98.6% of the fractures (n = 69/70). If absent, nonunion developed in 40.5% of cases (n = 17/42). The sensitivity to predict union with sonographic bridging callus at six weeks was 73.4% and the specificity was 94.4%.
In 100 patients the fulcrum axis which is the line connecting the anterior tip of the coracoid and the posterolateral angle of the acromion, was used to position true anteroposterior radiographs of the shoulder. This method was then compared with the conventional radiological technique in a further 100 patients. Three orthopaedic surgeons counted the number of images without overlap between the humeral head and glenoid and calculated the amount of the glenoid surface visible in each radiograph. The analysis was repeated for intraobserver reliability. The learning curves of both techniques were studied. The amount of free visible glenoid space was significantly higher using the fulcrum-axis method (64 vs 31) and the comparable glenoid size increased significantly (8.56 vs 6.47). Thus the accuracy of the anteroposterior radiographs of the shoulder is impaired by using this technique. The intra and interobserver reliability showed a high consistency. No learning curve was observed for either technique.
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.
