We retrospectively reviewed 11 consecutive patients with an infected reverse shoulder prosthesis. Patients were assessed clinically and radiologically, and standard laboratory tests were carried out. Peroperative samples showed Propionbacterium acnes in seven, coagulase-negative Staphylococcus in five, methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus in one and Escherichia coli in one. Two multibacterial and nine monobacterial infections were seen. Post-operatively, patients were treated with intravenous cefazolin for at least three days and in all antibiotic therapy was given for at least three months. Severe pain (3 of 11) or severe limitation of function (3 of 11) are not necessarily seen. A fistula was present in eight, but function was not affected. All but one patient were considered free of infection after one-stage revision at a median follow-up of 24 months, and without antibiotic treatment for a minimum of six months. One patient had a persistent infection despite a second staged revision, but is now free of infection with a spacer. Complications included posterior dislocation in one, haematoma in one and a clavicular fracture in one. At the most recent follow-up the median post-operative Constant-Murley score was 55, 6% adjusted for age, gender and dominance.

A one-stage revision arthroplasty reduces the cost and duration of treatment. It is reliable in eradicating infection and good functional outcomes can be achieved.

The treatment of a chronic posterior dislocation of the shoulder is often determined by the size of the associated impression fracture of the humeral head. Our hypothesis was that patients with a chronic unreduced posterior dislocation of the shoulder and a defect in the humeral head involving between 25% to 50% of the articular surface, would do better if reconstructed with an allograft from the femoral head rather than treated by a non-anatomical reconstruction. We reviewed ten men and three women with a mean age of 42 years (36 to 51) at a mean follow-up of 54 months (41 to 64) who had this procedure. At follow-up, nine had no pain or restriction of activities of daily living. Their mean Constant-Murley shoulder score was 86.8 (43 to 98). No patient had symptoms of instability of the shoulder.

Reconstruction of the defect in the humeral head with an allograft provides good pain relief, stability and function for patients with a locked, chronic posterior dislocation where the defect involves between 25% and 50% of the circumference of the articular surface.

The use of volar locking compression plates for the treatment of fractures of the distal radius is becoming increasingly popular because of the stable biomechanical construct, less soft-tissue disturbance and early mobilisation of the wrist. A few studies have reported complications such as rupture of flexor tendons. We describe three cases of rupture of extensor tendons after the use of volar locking compression plates. We recommend extreme care when drilling and placing the distal radial screws to prevent damaging the extensor tendons.

Surgical access to the head of the radius is usually performed through a lateral approach. We present an alternative technique through a modified posterior approach which was developed following dissections of 22 human cadavers. An osteotomy of the supinator tuberosity was performed and reflected as a single unit with the attached annular ligament. Excellent exposure of the head of the radius was achieved, replacement of the head was undertaken and the osteotomy site repaired. The elbows were stable and had a full range of movement. The approach was then carried out on 13 patients for elective replacement of the head and was found to be safe and reproducible. In the patient group all osteotomies united, the elbows were stable and had an improved range of supination and pronation. There was no change in flexion and extension of the elbow. Complications included a haematoma and a reflex sympathetic dystrophy.

The modified posterior approach provides excellent access to the head and neck of the radius, gives good stability of the elbow and allows early mobilisation of the joint.

We report the use of the reverse shoulder prosthesis in the revision of a failed shoulder hemiarthroplasty in 19 shoulders in 18 patients (7 men, 11 women) with severe pain and loss of function. The primary procedure had been undertaken for glenohumeral arthritis associated with severe rotator cuff deficiency.

Statistically significant improvements were seen in pain and functional outcome. After a mean follow-up of 44 months (24 to 89), mean forward flexion improved by 26.4° and mean abduction improved by 35°. There were six prosthesis-related complications in six shoulders (32%), five of which had severe bone loss of the glenoid, proximal humerus or both. Three shoulders (16%) had non-prosthesis related complications.

The use of the reverse shoulder prosthesis provides improvement in pain and function for patients with failure of a hemiarthroplasty for glenohumeral arthritis and rotator cuff deficiency. However, high rates of complications were associated with glenoid and proximal humeral bone loss.

There are theoretical and practical advantages to modular rather than monoblock designs of prostheses for shoulder arthroplasty, but there are no reported studies which specifically compare the clinical and radiological results of their use. We have compared the results of unconstrained total shoulder arthroplasty for osteoarthritis using both types of implant. The monoblock design was used between 1992 and 1995 and the modular design after 1995. Both had cemented all-polyethylene glenoids, the monoblock with matched and the modular with mismatched radii of curvature. There were 34 consecutive shoulders in each group with a mean follow-up of 6.1 years in the first and 5.2 years in the second.

There were no significant differences in improvement of pain scores, active elevation, external rotation, internal rotation, patient satisfaction, or the Neer ratings between the two groups. Two of 28 glenoid components in the first group and six of 30 in the second met the criteria for being radiologically at risk for loosening (p = 0.25). There were no significant differences in clinical outcome or radiological changes between the first- and second-generation designs of implant for shoulder arthroplasty.