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.

Bone defects are frequently observed in anterior shoulder instability. Over the last decade, knowledge of the association of bone loss with increased failure rates of soft-tissue repair has shifted the surgical management of chronic shoulder instability. On the glenoid side, there is no controversy about the critical glenoid bone loss being 20%. However, poor outcomes have been described even with a subcritical glenoid bone defect as low as 13.5%. On the humeral side, the Hill-Sachs lesion should be evaluated concomitantly with the glenoid defect as the two sides of the same bipolar lesion which interact in the instability process, as described by the glenoid track concept. We advocate adding remplissage to every Bankart repair in patients with a Hill-Sachs lesion, regardless of the glenoid bone loss. When critical or subcritical glenoid bone loss occurs in active patients (> 15%) or bipolar off-track lesions, we should consider anterior glenoid bone reconstructions. The techniques have evolved significantly over the last two decades, moving from open procedures to arthroscopic, and from screw fixation to metal-free fixation. The new arthroscopic techniques of glenoid bone reconstruction procedures allow precise positioning of the graft, identification, and treatment of concomitant injuries with low morbidity and faster recovery. Given the problems associated with bone resorption and metal hardware protrusion, the new metal-free techniques for Latarjet or free bone block procedures seem a good solution to avoid these complications, although no long-term data are yet available.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(10):1100–1110.

Aims

Patients with recurrent anterior dislocation of the shoulder commonly have an anterior osseous defect of the glenoid. Once the defect reaches a critical size, stability may be restored by bone grafting. The critical size of this defect under non-physiological loading conditions has previously been identified as 20% of the length of the glenoid. As the stability of the shoulder is load-dependent, with higher joint forces leading to a loss of stability, the aim of this study was to determine the critical size of an osseous defect that leads to further anterior instability of the shoulder under physiological loading despite a Bankart repair.

Aims

The reasons for failure of a hemirthroplasty (HA) when used to treat a proximal humeral fracture include displaced or necrotic tuberosities, insufficient metaphyseal bone-stock, and rotator cuff tears. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) is often the only remaining form of treatment in these patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcome after conversions from a failed HA to rTSA.

We report our experience with glenohumeral arthrodesis as a salvage procedure for epilepsy-related recurrent shoulder instability. A total of six patients with epilepsy underwent shoulder fusion for recurrent instability and were followed up for a mean of 39 months (12 to 79). The mean age at the time of surgery was 31 years (22 to 38). Arthrodesis was performed after a mean of four previous stabilisation attempts (0 to 11) in all but one patient in whom the procedure was used as a primary treatment. All patients achieved bony union, with a mean time to fusion of 2.8 months (2 to 7). There were no cases of re-dislocation. One revision was undertaken for loosening of the metalwork, and then healed satisfactorily. An increase was noted in the mean subjective shoulder value, which improved from 37 (5 to 50) pre-operatively to 42 (20 to 70) post-operatively although it decreased in two patients. The mean Oxford shoulder instability score improved from 13 pre-operatively (7 to 21) to 24 post-operatively (13 to 36). In our series, glenohumeral arthrodesis eliminated recurrent instability and improved functional outcome. Fusion surgery should therefore be considered in this patient population. However, since the majority of patients are young and active, they should be comprehensively counselled pre-operatively given the functional deficit that results from the procedure.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:1525–9.

To prevent insufficiency of the triceps after total elbow arthroplasty, we have, since 2008, used a triceps-sparing ulnar approach. This study evaluates the clinical results and post-operative alignment of the prosthesis using this approach.

We reviewed 25 elbows in 23 patients. There were five men and 18 women with a mean age of 69 years (54 to 83). There were 18 elbows with rheumatoid arthritis, six with a fracture or pseudoarthrosis and one elbow with osteoarthritis.

Post-operative complications included one intra-operative fracture, one elbow with heterotopic ossification, one transient ulnar nerve palsy, and one elbow with skin necrosis, but no elbow was affected by insufficiency of the triceps.

Patients were followed for a mean of 42 months (24 to 77). The mean post-operative Japanese Orthopaedic Association Elbow Score was 90.8 (51 to 100) and the mean Mayo Elbow Performance score 93.8 (65 to 100). The mean post-operative flexion/extension of the elbow was 135°/-8°. The Manual Muscle Testing score of the triceps was 5 in 23 elbows and 2 in two elbows (one patient). The mean alignment of the implants examined by 3D-CT was 2.8° pronation (standard deviation (sd) 5.5), 0.3° valgus (sd 2.7), and 0.7° extension (sd 3.2) for the humeral component, and 9.3° pronation (sd 9.7), 0.3° valgus (sd 4.0), and 8.6° extension (sd 3.1) for the ulnar component. There was no radiolucent line or loosening of the implants on the final radiographs.

The triceps-sparing ulnar approach allows satisfactory alignment of the implants, is effective in preventing post-operative triceps insufficiency, and gives satisfactory short-term results.

Cite this article: 2015;97-B:1096–1101.