Glomus tumor of the scapular neck with axillary nerve compression at the shoulder. A case report.

Background: Glomus tumors, also known as benign acral tumors are extremely rare. Previous glomus tumors from other regions of the body have been linked to neurological compression symptoms, however axillary compression at the scapular neck has never been described. Case presentation: Here, we report a case of axillary nerve compression in a 47-year-old man, secondary to a glomus tumor of the neck of the right scapula, initially misdiagnosed with biceps tenodesis performed and no pain improvement. The magnetic resonance imaging demonstrated a well-contoured, 12 mm tumefaction at the inferior pole of the scapular neck T2-hyperintense and T1-isointense and interpreted as a neuroma. An axillary approach allowed the dissection of the axillary nerve, and the tumor was completely removed. The pathological anatomical analysis resulted in a nodular red lesion measuring 14 × 10 mm, delimited and encapsulated with a definitive diagnostic of glomus tumor. The neurologic symptoms and pain disappeared 3 weeks after surgery and the patient reported satisfaction with the surgical procedure. After 3 months, the results remain stable with a complete resolution of the symptoms. Conclusions: In cases of unexplained and atypical pain in the axillary area, and to avoid potential misdiagnoses and inappropriate treatments, an in-depth exploration for a compressive tumor should be performed as a differential diagnosis.

Simulation in shoulder arthroplasty education using three-dimensional planning software: the role of guidelines and predicted range of motion.

AIM: To demonstrate how reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) planning software could be used to improve how the trainees position glenoid and humeral implants and obtain optimal simulated range of motion (ROM). METHODS: We selected four groups of five various level participants: medical student (MS), junior resident (JR), senior resident (SR), and shoulder expert (SE). Thereafter, the 20 participants planned five cases of arthritic shoulders for a RSA on a validated planning software following three phases: (1) no guidelines and no ROM feedback, (2) guidelines but no ROM feedback, and (3) guidelines and ROM feedback. We evaluated the final simulated impingement-free ROM, the choice of the implant (baseplate size, graft, glenosphere), and the glenoid implant positioning. RESULTS: MS planning were significantly improved by the ROM feedback only. JR took the best advantage of both guidelines and ROM in final results. SR planning were less performant than SE into phase 1 regarding flexion, external rotation, and adduction (respectively - 10°, p = 0.03; - 11°, p = 0.003; and - 3°, p = 0,03), but reached similar results into phase 3 (respectively - 2°, p = 0.329; - 4°, p = 0.44; - 2°, p = 0.319). For MS, JR, and SR, we observed a systematic improvement in the agreement over the study course. The glenoid diameter remained highly variable even for SE. Comparing glenoid implant position to SE, the distance error decreased with advancing phases. CONCLUSION: Planning software can be used as a simulation training tool to improve implant positioning in shoulder arthroplasty procedures.

Glenoid erosion is a risk factor for recurrent instability after Hill-Sachs remplissage.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to identify risk factors for recurrent instability of the shoulder and assess the ability to return to sport in patients with engaging Hill-Sachs lesions treated with arthroscopic Bankart repair and Hill-Sachs remplissage (ABR-HSR). METHODS: This retrospective study included 133 consecutive patients with a mean age of 30 years (14 to 69) who underwent ABR-HSR; 103 (77%) practiced sports before the instability of the shoulder. All had large/deep, engaging Hill-Sachs lesions (Calandra III). Patients were divided into two groups: A (n = 102) with minimal or no (< 10%) glenoid bone loss, and B (n = 31) with subcritical (10% to 20%) glenoid loss. A total of 19 patients (14%) had undergone a previous stabilization, which failed. The primary endpoint was recurrent instability, with a secondary outcome of the ability to return to sport. RESULTS: At a mean follow-up of four years (1.0 to 8.25), ten patients (7.5%) had recurrent instability. Patients in group B had a significantly higher recurrence rate than those in group A (p = 0.001). Using a multivariate logistic regression, the presence of glenoid erosion of > 10% (odds ratio (OR) = 35.13 (95% confidence interval (CI) 8 to 149); p = 0.001) and age < 23 years (OR = 0.89 (0.79 to 0.99); p = 0.038) were associated with a higher risk of recurrent instability. A total of 80 patients (78%) could return to sport, but only 11 athletes (65%) who practiced high-risk (collision or contact-overhead) sports. All seven shoulders which were revised using a Latarjet procedure were stable at a mean final follow-up of 36 months (11 to 57) and returned to sports at the same level. CONCLUSION: Patients with subcritical glenoid bone loss (> 10%) and younger age (≤ 23 years) are at risk of failure and reoperation after ABR-HSR. Furthermore, following this procedure, one-third of athletes practicing high-risk sports are unable to return at their pre-instability level, despite having a stable shoulder. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(4):718-724.

Transphyseal Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Using Hybrid Transtibial Femoral Drilling and a Quadriceps Tendon Autograft.

Significant controversy exists regarding the optimal surgical technique for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction in adolescents with 1 to 3 years of skeletal growth remaining. Graft choice and physeal injury remain primary concerns given significantly elevated rates of failure of hamstring autograft reconstructions in this population, as well as risks of leg-length discrepancy and growth axis deviation. Traditional (more vertical) transtibial drilling of the femoral tunnel can reduce risks of physeal injury but has been shown to have less accuracy restoring the native femoral ACL footprint and associated incomplete knee stabilization. On the other hand, anteromedial and outside-in drilling yields improvements in the tunnel location and biomechanics but at the cost of a more oblique trajectory and greater risk of physeal injury. A hybrid transtibial pin technique using a Pathfinder guide facilitates femoral drilling with the "best of both worlds," allowing for reproduction of the native ACL footprint and a more physeal-respecting femoral tunnel. When combined with an all-soft tissue quadriceps tendon autograft and suspensory fixation, the hybrid transtibial method yields a reliable, safe, and robust construct with promising results for the young athlete. We describe our preferred graft harvest, tunnel drilling, and fixation techniques to minimize physeal risks and optimize outcomes.

Anchor-Based Femoral Fixation for Physeal-Sparing Medial Patellofemoral Ligament Reconstruction: A Time-Zero Biomechanical Comparison With Tenodesis Screw Fixation.

BACKGROUND: Open physes and trochlear/notch geometries in pediatric patients limit the safe corridor for femoral interference screw graft fixation during medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) reconstruction. Accordingly, interest is increasing in anchor-based fixation, but biomechanical validation is deficient. PURPOSE: To compare anchor-based and tenodesis screw femoral fixation of MPFL grafts in a time-zero biomechanical model. STUDY DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study. METHODS: Twenty-seven fresh-frozen porcine distal femurs were potted for testing in an electromechanical load frame, while bovine tendons were used for MPFL grafts. Reconstructions were performed with 1 of 3 femoral fixation strategies: 4.5-mm biocomposite double-loaded threaded anchor (DLA group), 3.9-mm biocomposite knotless threaded anchor (KA group), or traditional 7 × 23-mm biocomposite tenodesis screw (TS group). For testing, femoral specimens were oriented and secured in the mechanical testing apparatus such that actuator tensile pull re-created the normal MPFL trajectory. Specimens underwent 10 cycles of 5- to 15-N loading at 1-Hz preconditioning, followed by 1000 cycles of 10- to 50 N-loading at 1 Hz. After cyclic loading, all specimens were loaded to failure at 305 mm/min. The average cyclic construct stiffness, displacement, and load-to-failure data between the 3 groups were compared using analysis of variance (ANOVA) with the significance level set at P < .05. RESULTS: Average cyclic construct stiffnesses were comparable across groups per repeated-measures ANOVA analysis: 68.3 ± 6.3, 71.4 ± 6.4, and 74.3 ± 7.9 N/mm for TS, DLA, and KA groups, respectively (at cycle 1000). Average construct displacements at cycles 100 and 1000 were significantly less in the anchor versus tenodesis screw groups per ANOVA and Tukey post hoc analysis: 7.7 ± 4.2 mm for the TS group versus 3.7 ± 0.4 and 4.3 ± 0.6 mm for the DLA and KA groups, respectively (at cycle 1000). There was no significant difference in ultimate failure loads between the anchor and tenodesis screw groups, but 3 of 9 TS constructs failed at loads below the average failure load of the native MPFL. CONCLUSION: Compared with the tenodesis group, anchor-based fixation produced constructs with equivalent cyclic stiffnesses, improved load-displacement characteristics, and had less failure load variability in the porcine cadaveric model. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Femoral fixation of the MPFL graft with a single anchor (4.5 or 3.9 mm threaded) is a viable alternative to traditional tenodesis screw fixation.