Management of Three- and Four-Part Proximal Humerus Fractures.

The management of three- and four-part proximal humerus fractures remains controversial because the literature has supported all forms of management, including nonsurgical management, open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF), and shoulder arthroplasty. Specific patient factors ultimately influence the decision of which treatment best fits the patient and the fracture. Surgeons should understand the rationale for nonsurgical and surgical management of these fractures, including ORIF and reverse shoulder arthroplasty.

Surgical management of periprosthetic shoulder infections.

BACKGROUND: The treatment of periprosthetic joint infection is a difficult challenge in shoulder arthroplasty. This study investigated 1-stage modular component exchange vs. 1-stage complete removal and reimplantation (CRR) vs. 2-stage revision arthroplasty for periprosthetic joint infection. METHODS: Between January 1, 2004, and December 31, 2012, 79 patients received a component exchange (n = 15), CRR (n = 45), or a 2-stage (n = 19) revision for infection. A binary logistic regression analysis was performed to determine factors presenting the greatest risk of reinfection. Complications and functional outcomes were also evaluated. RESULTS: Overall, 4 of 15 (27%) component exchanges, 2 of 45 (4%) CRRs, and 4 of 19 (21%) 2-stage procedures required a reoperation for infection with a minimum of 1 year of follow-up. The difference between the CRR group and exchange group was significant (P = .030); however, the difference between the CRR group and 2-stage group did not reach statistical significance (P = .059). No preoperative and intraoperative selection bias between the groups was found. Binary logistic regression predicted that reinfection was highest in patients whose cultures grew Staphylococcus aureus (P = .004) or coagulase-negative Staphylococcus species (P = .041) or those treated with a component exchange (P = .015). The difference between groups for noninfection-related complications was not significant (P = .703). All procedures provided improved functional outcomes and pain relief. CONCLUSION: Patients with infection caused by Staphylococcus aureus or coagulase-negative Staphylococcus species may require additional operations to treat the infection. Although effective in some cases, component exchange presents an increased risk for reinfection. A 1-stage CRR procedure had similar reinfection rates as a 2-stage procedure in our patient population.

Biomechanics of Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty: Current Concepts.

The evolution of reverse shoulder arthroplasty has provided surgeons with new solutions for many complex shoulder problems. A primary goal of orthopaedics is the restoration or re-creation of functional anatomy to reduce pain and improve function, which can be accomplished by either repairing injured structures or replacing them as anatomically as possible. If reconstructible tissue is lacking or not available, which is seen in patients who have complex shoulder conditions such as an irreparable rotator cuff-deficient shoulder, cuff tear arthropathy, or severe glenoid bone loss, substantial problems may arise. Historically, hemiarthroplasty or glenoid grafting with total shoulder arthroplasty yielded inconsistent and unsatisfactory results. Underlying pathologies in patients who have an irreparable rotator cuff-deficient shoulder, cuff tear arthropathy, or severe glenoid bone loss can considerably alter the mechanical function of the shoulder and create treatment dilemmas that are difficult to overcome. A better biomechanical understanding of these pathologic adaptations has improved treatment options. In the past three decades, reverse total shoulder arthroplasty was developed to treat these complex shoulder conditions not by specifically re-creating the anatomy but by using the remaining functional tissue to improve shoulder balance. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty has achieved reliable improvements in both pain and function. Initial implant designs lacked scientific evidence to support the design rationale, and many implants failed because surgeons did not completely understand the forces involved or the pathology being treated. Implant function and clinical results will continue to improve as surgeons' biomechanical understanding of shoulder disease and reverse shoulder arthroplasty implants increases.

Revision for a failed reverse: a 12-year review of a lateralized implant.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was (1) to evaluate the rates of reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) revisions during a 12-year period, (2) to assess the influence of primary diagnosis and the impact of implant modifications on revisions, (3) to describe surgical management of failed RSA, and (4) to analyze outcomes of patients with minimum 24-month follow-up. METHODS: A retrospective database review identified primary diagnosis for 1418 patients who underwent RSA from 2000 to 2012. A subgroup of 85 patients required return to the operating room for removal or exchange of components. Indication to reoperate, intraoperative management, and outcomes were reviewed. Indications were grouped into 7 categories: baseplate failure, humeral component dissociation, glenosphere dissociation, glenohumeral dislocation, aseptic humeral loosening, periprosthetic fracture, and infection. During the study, design modifications were made to the baseplate, humeral socket, and glenosphere. Surgical strategies were analyzed through operative reports. Range of motion, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores, and Simple Shoulder Test scores were collected before and after surgery and compared for 58 patients with 2-year follow-up. RESULTS: Overall revision rate was 6%. Patients undergoing RSA for failed hemiarthroplasty had the highest revision rate (10%). Indications for revision included baseplate failure (2.5%), infection (1.3%), humeral dissociation (0.7%), glenosphere dissociation (0.6%), periprosthetic fracture (0.4%), glenohumeral dislocation (0.4%), and aseptic humeral loosening (0.3%). Baseplate modifications reduced the incidence of baseplate failure to 0.3%. Range of motion and the Simple Shoulder Test and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores improved. CONCLUSION: Although revision RSA is challenging, with higher risk for complications compared with primary RSA, patients still exhibit significant clinical improvements.

Cyanoacrylate microbial sealant may reduce the prevalence of positive cultures in revision shoulder arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Cyanoacrylate-based, microbial sealant is an adhesive skin barrier designed to prevent bacterial contamination in surgical wounds. This type of adhesive barrier could have use in decreasing the incidence of positive cultures and subsequent infection in shoulder arthroplasty. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We therefore evaluated whether cyanoacrylate microbial sealant reduced the positive intraoperative culture rates in revision shoulder arthroplasty. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 55 patients who underwent revision shoulder arthroplasties. Intraoperative aerobic and anaerobic deep tissue culture results taken during the revisions were compared. Cultures were taken of the deep synovial tissue lining the prosthesis. Patients were divided into two groups: those who underwent standard preparations with adhesive, iodine-barrier drapes (Group SP) and those who had placement of cyanoacrylate microbial sealant in addition to the standard prep (Group MS). RESULTS: The prevalence of cases with positive cultures was 18% (seven of 40) in Group SP compared with 7% (one of 15) in Group MS. The prevalence of positive, anaerobic Propionibacterium acnes cultures was 13% in Group SP compared with 7% in Group MS. The prevalence of infections confirmed at revision surgery was 8% in Group SP versus 0% in Group MS. CONCLUSIONS: Our observations suggest application of a cyanoacrylate microbial sealant may reduce the prevalence of positive cultures and thereby subsequent infections in revision shoulder arthroplasties. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective cohort study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.