Exposure of the brachial plexus in complex revisions to reverse total shoulder arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Excision of extensive scar tissue (EEST) may be required in certain cases of revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA). Neurovascular structures are at a higher risk of iatrogenic direct injury in these cases. We describe a technique to expose and protect the musculocutaneous and axillary nerves in a series of revision RTSA cases that required EEST. METHODS: Between 2004 and 2013, 83 revision RTSA procedures were identified in our database. Of these, 18 cases (22%) who underwent concomitant nerve exploration for EEST preventing glenoid exposure, preventing reduction of the humeral component, or causing instability of the implanted RTSA, were included. All patients were observed for a minimum of two  years or until reoperation. Patient-reported outcome scores (PROMs), range of motion (ROM), and complication rates were analyzed. RESULTS: Patients had significant pain relief and improvement in PROMs post-operatively. Two patients (11%) required another revision surgery because of infection (one patient with glenoid loosening; one patient with stem loosening). Two patients (11%) had instability successfully managed with closed reduction. Two patients (11%) had a clinically evident post-operative nerve injury. Both cases were neurapraxias (1 partial brachial plexopathy and 1 partial isolated axillary nerve injury) and experienced complete neurologic recovery at last follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Complete permanent nerve injuries resulting from direct surgical trauma during revision RTSA requiring EEST can be avoided using the technique presented here. Despite proper exposition of the nerves, partial temporary neurapraxic injuries may occur. Patients who underwent this procedure experienced significant improvements in shoulder pain and function with complication rates consistent to those previously reported in revision RTSA.

Isolated complete ulnar collateral ligament tear of the elbow in a gymnast: does it need surgery?

Ulnar collateral ligament (UCL) tears can occur from trauma or chronic overuse, and the treatment depends on the type of sport the patient plays and the severity of symptoms. Overuse UCL injuries are most commonly due to micro-trauma in overhead athletes such as baseball players, softball players, and tennis players. Acute complete UCL tears in athletes due to trauma are less common but generally operative treatment is recommended. In gymnastics, elbow dislocations are more common than isolated UCL injuries, and there is sparse literature on the success of non-operative treatment of isolated UCL injuries in this group of athletes. In this case report, we report a high-level competitive gymnast with an UCL tear and a partial tear of the forearm flexor mass, which was confirmed by a thorough careful physical examination and magnetic resonance imaging. The patient was treated non-operatively and successfully returned to gymnastics without symptoms. This case supports the suggestion that UCL tears of the elbow can be treated successfully in some gymnasts without surgery, and that treatment should be individualized in this group of athletes.

Complications of antibiotic cement spacers used for shoulder infections.

BACKGROUND: Our aim was to evaluate complications related to commercially available antibiotic cement spacers used in the treatment of shoulder infections. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of commercially available antibiotic spacers implanted in 53 patients (60 spacers) between April 2009 and October 2017 as part of a 2-stage treatment plan for infection at the site of a shoulder arthroplasty (n = 39), other (non-arthroplasty) shoulder surgery (n = 8), or primary shoulder infection without previous surgery (n = 6). All patients were followed up from spacer placement to second-stage revision to shoulder arthroplasty. Ten patients retained the spacers and were followed up for a minimum of 1 year. RESULTS: No complications were associated with implantation of the spacers. Of the 44 patients (50 spacers) who underwent a second-stage revision after a mean interval of 6 months (range, 2-18 months), 14 patients had 18 complications. Fourteen complications occurred between implantation and removal. The most common complication was bone erosion (6 in the glenoid and 2 in the humeral shaft). Other complications were fractures of the spacer (n = 4), spacer rotation (n = 3), and humeral fracture (n = 3). Two complications required reoperation. There were 4 spacer-related complications among the 10 patients who retained the implant (3 erosions of the humeral shaft and 1 humeral shaft fracture); none required reoperation or removal. CONCLUSIONS: Complications related to antibiotic spacers are common especially between the first and second stage of revision, and awareness of these complications is important for the treating provider.

Clinical Assessment of the Dynamic Labral Shear Test for Superior Labrum Anterior and Posterior Lesions.

BACKGROUND: Diagnosing superior labrum anterior and posterior (SLAP) lesions through physical examination remains challenging. The dynamic labral shear test (DLST) has been shown to have likelihood ratios (LRs) of 31.6 and 1.1 for diagnosing SLAP lesions. PURPOSE: To determine the clinical utility of the DLST for diagnosing SLAP lesions. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 2. METHODS: This prospective, consecutive case series included 774 patients who underwent diagnostic arthroscopy and a preoperative DLST between 2007 and 2013. Patients were divided into 3 groups: 610 control patients with no SLAP lesion but with other abnormalities, 9 patients with isolated SLAP lesion (ISL), and 155 patients with concomitant SLAP lesion (CSL), who had a SLAP lesion and another shoulder abnormality. We determined sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), odds ratio (OR), and diagnostic accuracy (DA) of the DLST with and without other tests. RESULTS: The DLST was positive for 242 of 610 controls (40%), 7 of 9 patients (78%) in the ISL group, and 88 of 155 patients (57%) in the CSL group. In the ISL group, the DLST had a sensitivity of 78%, specificity of 51%, PPV of 2%, NPV of 100%, OR of 3.58, and DA of 51%. In comparison, the ORs were 1.09 for the active compression test, 1.30 for the lift-off test, and 1.53 for the relocation test, which were not significantly different from each other. For diagnosing a SLAP lesion existing in a joint with other associated injury, the DLST had a sensitivity of 57%, specificity of 52%, PPV of 23%, NPV of 83%, OR of 1.4, and DA of 53%. Combining all 4 tests did not improve the OR for detecting ISLs or CSLs. CONCLUSION: The DLST is sensitive but not specific for detecting ISLs. With an OR of 3.58, the DLST is useful for diagnosing ISLs. However, in patients who have CSLs, the DLST is not as useful for diagnosing SLAP lesions.