Revision rate after screw or plate arthrodesis of the glenohumeral joint.

INTRODUCTION: Glenohumeral arthrodesis is a rare salvage procedure for selected patients with different shoulder pathologies. Among a variety of surgical techniques, compression screws or plate fixation are most widely used. Minimally invasive screw fixation has become more popular, although it has been shown to be biomechanically inferior to plate arthrodesis. HYPOTHESIS: Screw arthrodesis would lead to a higher revision rate than plate arthrodesis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty-seven plate and 7 screw arthrodesis of the glenohumeral joint in 19 male and 15 female patients of a mean age of 50years (range, 16-85years) were reviewed in a retrospective multicenter study with at a follow-up of 43months (range, 11-152months) to compare their clinical and radiographic outcome with special focus on revision rate. RESULTS: Constant score did not change, but its subscore for pain significantly improved from 4.5 points (range, 0-15 points) to 11 points (range, 6-15 points). The subjective shoulder value increased significantly from 19% (range, 0-70%) to 41% (range, 10-80%) and 81% of the patients were satisfied. In 14 patients (41%), the arthrodesis had to be revised either for non-union (11) or malunion (3) at a mean of 12months (range, 0-47months). The 2 groups did not differ in terms of demographic data, nor of preoperative and postoperative clinical data. There were more revisions after screw than plate fixation. If revision was performed for non-union, this difference was significant. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: In selected patients, glenohumeral arthrodesis can significantly reduce pain and achieve at best a reasonable function and subjective satisfaction rate. Revision rates favor plate over isolated screw fixation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV retrospective series.

Comparison of the outcome following the fixation of osteotomies or fractures associated with total hip replacement using cables or wires: the results at five years.

There are no recent studies comparing cable with wire for the fixation of osteotomies or fractures in total hip replacement (THR). Our objective was to evaluate the five-year clinical and radiological outcomes and complication rates of the two techniques. We undertook a review including all primary and revision THRs performed in one hospital between 1996 and 2005 using cable or wire fixation. Clinical and radiological evaluation was performed five years post-operatively. Cables were used in 51 THRs and wires in 126, and of these, 36 THRs with cable (71%) and 101 with wire (80%) were evaluated at follow-up. The five-year radiographs available for 33 cable and 91 wire THRs revealed rates of breakage of fixation of 12 of 33 (36%) and 42 of 91 (46%), respectively. With cable there was a significantly higher risk of metal debris (68% vs. 9%; adjusted relative risk (RR) 6.6; 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.0 to 14.1), nonunion (36% vs. 21%; adjusted RR 2.0; 95% CI 1.0 to 3.9) and osteolysis around the material, acetabulum or femur (61% vs 19%; adjusted RR 3.9; 95% CI 2.3 to 6.5). Cable breakage increased the risk of osteolysis to 83%. There was a trend towards foreign-body reaction and increased infection with cables. Clinical results did not differ between the groups. In conclusion, we found a higher incidence of complications and a trend towards increased infection and foreign-body reaction with the use of cables.