Iatrogenic Excessive Clavicle Resection as a Complication of Arthroscopic Distal Clavicle Excision.

Arthroscopic distal clavicle excision (DCE) is a reliable procedure to treat acromioclavicular joint arthritis. Typically, only 1 to 2 cm of distal clavicle should be removed. Resection of too much bone can lead to instability of the joint or lack of support to the shoulder. We describe 2 patients who had excessive clavicular bone removed arthroscopically, leading to irreparable clavicular pain and dysfunction. The 2 female patients, ages 56 and 60 years, presented to our clinic with continued pain after DCE. Both had pain intractable with nonoperative treatment and loss of range of motion of the shoulder. Radiographs revealed a distal clavicle defect of 7.5 cm in 1 patient. The second patient had a 2-cm distal clavicular defect with an adjacent 2-cm clavicle bone fragment between the defect and residual clavicle shaft. Both underwent surgery with subtotal claviculectomy for pain control. During surgery, 1 patient had a subclavian vein requiring vascular repair. After 1 year of follow-up, both patients had reduced but residual pain and restricted range of motion. Only 1 patient could rejoin her preinjury occupation. Neither patient could continue with preinjury recreational sports. Excessive removal of the distal clavicle during DCE can result in continued pain and disability of the shoulder. Methods to visualize the anatomy of the distal clavicle and its articulation to the acromion should be considered when performing this operation arthroscopically. Reoperation to remove subtotal clavicle has good clinical outcomes but may lead to serious complications due to the proximity to major neurovascular structures. [Orthopedics. 2024;47(1):e57-e60.].

Narrative review of influence of prosthesis lateralization on clinical outcomes in reverse shoulder arthroplasty: glenoid vs. humerus vs. combined.

Background and Objective: Reverse shoulder arthroplasty has become a common orthopaedic procedure, with a growing number of cases annually for multiple indications, such as rotator cuff arthropathy, osteoarthritis, or fractures of the proximal humerus, to reduce pain and restore shoulder mobility. Prosthesis design and various recent improvements aim to enhance range of motion (ROM) and stability and to limit component loosening and other potential complications. Many of these well-known issues could theoretically be improved by glenoid, humeral, or combined component lateralization. The objective of this article is to provide an up-to-date literature overview, present available options, and discuss the rationale behind lateralization of certain components, as well as their combined impact on outcomes of reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Methods: PubMed and Scopus databases from 2003 to 2023 were searched and screened for studies, including systematic reviews, on the influence of glenoid, humeral, and combined component lateralization that served for narrative review of rationale behind such design. Key Content and Findings: Currently, a number of computer simulations, anatomic studies, and limited clinical references aim to support the rationale behind glenoid augmentation, variable humeral neck-shaft angle (NSA), or humeral tray design. Conclusions: The utility of lateralization has not yet been clinically established. Randomized, long-term clinical outcome studies are still needed to reach a verdict going beyond surgeon preference and case-specific indications.