Arthroscopic Posterior Capsulolabral Repair With Suture-First Versus Anchor-First Technique in Patients With Posterior Shoulder Instability (Type B2): Clinical Midterm Follow-up.

Background: Isolated soft tissue injuries of the posterior capsulolabral complex can be addressed arthroscopically, with various anchor systems available for repair. Purpose: To evaluate clinical and patient-reported outcomes after arthroscopic capsulolabral repair in patients with posterior shoulder instability (PSI) and to compare differences in outcomes between patients treated with a suture-first technique (PushLock anchor) and an anchor-first technique (FiberTak all-suture anchor). Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Included were 32 patients with dynamic structural PSI (type B2 according to the ABC classification) treated with an arthroscopic posterior capsulolabral repair. After a mean follow-up time of 4.8 ± 3.4 years (range, 2-11) patients were evaluated clinically, and standardized outcome scores were obtained for the Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV), the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI), Rowe, Kerlan-Jobe Orthopaedic Clinic (KJOC), patient satisfaction (0-5 [best]), and pain on a visual analog scale (VAS; 0-10 [worst]). Results: The overall satisfaction level with the outcome of the surgery was 4.6 ± 0.5 (range, 4-5). No patient suffered from instability events. The mean VAS level for pain was 0.4 ± 0.9 (range, 0-4) at rest and 1.9 ± 2.0 (range, 0-6) during motion. The mean SSV was 80 ± 17 (range, 30-100), the mean postoperative WOSI score 75% ± 19% (range, 18-98), the mean Rowe score 78 ± 20 (range, 10-100), and the mean KJOC score was 81 ± 18 (range, 40-100) for the entire cohort. There was no significant difference between the techniques with regard to range of motion, strength, or clinical outcome scores. Conclusion: Arthroscopic posterior capsulolabral repair was a satisfactory method to treat structural PSI type B2 with regard to stability, pain relief, and functional restoration. The majority of patients had good outcomes. No differences in outcomes were observed between the anchor-first and suture-first techniques.

Arthroscopic Posterior Articular Coverage and Shift (PACS) Procedure for Treatment of Preosteoarthritic Constitutional Static Posterior Shoulder Instability (Type C1).

BACKGROUND: Different joint-preserving techniques for treatment of preosteoarthritic, constitutional static (type C1) posterior shoulder instability (PSI) have been proposed, including posterior glenoid open wedge osteotomy and bone graft augmentation. However, the techniques are demanding, the reported complication and reoperation rates are high, and posterior decentering cannot reliably be reversed. PURPOSE: To assess the clinical and radiological longitudinal outcomes of patients with type C1 PSI after arthroscopic posterior articular coverage and shift (PACS) surgery. STUDY DESIGN: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of a prospective database with longitudinal follow-up including 14 shoulders in 13 patients who underwent an arthroscopic PACS procedure for symptomatic preosteoarthritic constitutional static posterior instability (type C1) with previous failed nonoperative treatment. Patients were clinically evaluated before surgery and at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively in terms of satisfaction and pain levels as well as standardized physical examination, Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV), Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI) score, Constant score, and Rowe score. Preoperative, postoperative, and follow-up magnetic resonance imaging scans were obtained in all patients. A paired 2-sample t test was used to compare changes in continuous variable parameters over time. Correlation analyses were performed using the Pearson correlation coefficient. RESULTS: All outcome scores and the pain level improved significantly from preoperatively to postoperatively, and the improvement was sustained over the follow-up period of 2 years (pain level, 6.4 preoperatively vs 3.3 at 2 years, P < .001; SSV, 40 vs 70, P = .001; WOSI, 33 vs 56, P = .001; Constant, 70 vs 79, P = .049; Rowe, 52 vs 76, P < .001). The mean glenohumeral and scapulohumeral subluxation indices were significantly lower in the early postoperative period compared with preoperative measurements (glenohumeral, 52% ± 6% vs 58% ± 10%, P = .02; scapulohumeral, 70% ± 8%; vs 77% ± 9%, P = .002, respectively); however, they returned to baseline values at follow-up (57% ± 7% vs 58% ± 10%, P = .7; 75% ± 6% vs 77% ± 9%, P = .4, respectively). A high scapulohumeral subluxation index, excessive glenoid retroversion, and increased posterior positioning of the humeral head in relation to scapular blade axis and older age were correlated with worse clinical outcomes. CONCLUSION: Over the follow-up period of 2 years, the PACS procedure significantly improved outcome scores in patients who had preosteoarthritic constitutional static posterior shoulder instability, especially in younger patients with less severe glenoid retroversion and posterior decentering of the humeral head. However, similar to other techniques, the PACS procedure needs to be considered a symptomatic therapy that does not reverse the underlying cause or stop the progressive pathology.

Conservative treatment of acute traumatic posterior shoulder dislocations (Type A) is a viable option especially in patients with centred joint, low gamma angle, and middle or old age.

PURPOSE: Purpose of this study was to evaluate the mid- to long-term outcome after conservatively treated first-time posterior shoulder dislocations and to determine structural defects associated with failure. METHODS: In this multi-centric retrospective study, 29 shoulders in 28 patients with first-time acute posterior shoulder dislocation (Type A1 or A2 according to the ABC classification) and available cross-sectional imaging were included. Outcome scores as well as radiological and magnetic resonance imaging were obtained at a mean follow-up of 8.3 ± 2.7 years (minimum: 5 years). The association of structural defects with redislocation, need for secondary surgery, and inferior clinical outcomes were analysed. RESULTS: Redislocation occurred in six (21%) shoulders and nine shoulders (31%) underwent secondary surgery due to persistent symptoms. The posttraumatic posterior glenohumeral subluxation was higher in the redislocation group compared to the no redislocation group; however, statistical significance was not reached (61.9 ± 12.5% vs. 50.6 ± 6.4%). Furthermore, a higher adapted gamma angle was observed in the failed conservative treatment group versus the conservative treatment group, similarly without statistically significant difference (97.8° ± 7.2°, vs. 93.3° ± 9.7°). The adapted gamma angle was higher than 90° in all patients of failed conservative therapy and the redislocation group. An older age at the time of dislocation showed a significant correlation with better clinical outcomes (SSV: r = 0.543, p = 0.02; ROWE: r = 0.418, p = 0.035 and WOSI: r = 0.478, p = 0.045). Posterior glenohumeral subluxation after trauma correlated with a worse WOSI (r = - 0.59, p = 0.02) and follow-up posterior glenohumeral decentring (r = 0.68, p = 0.007). The gamma angle (r = 0.396, p = 0.039) and depth of the reverse Hill-Sachs lesion (r = 0.437, p = 0.023) correlated significantly with the grade of osteoarthritis at follow-up. CONCLUSION: Conservative treatment is a viable option in patients with an acute traumatic posterior shoulder dislocation with good outcome after mid- and long-term follow-up especially in patients with centred joint, low gamma angle, and middle or old age. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Middle trapezius transfer for treatment of irreparable supraspinatus tendon tears- anatomical feasibility study.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the anatomical feasibility of a middle trapezius transfer below the acromion for treatment of irreparable supraspinatus tendon tears. METHODS: This study involved 20 human cadaveric shoulders in 10 full-body specimens. One shoulder in each specimen was dissected and assessed for muscle and tendon extent, force vectors, and distance to the neurovascular structures. The opposite shoulder was used to evaluate the surgical feasibility of the middle trapezius transfer via limited skin incisions along with an assessment of range of motion and risk of neurovascular injury following transfer. RESULTS: The harvested acromial insertion of the middle trapezius tendon showed an average muscle length of 11.7 ± 3.0 cm, tendon length of 2.7 ± 0.9 cm, footprint length of 4.3 ± 0.7 cm and footprint width of 1.4 ± 0.5 cm. The average angle between the non-transferred middle trapezius transfer and the supraspinatus was 33 ± 10° in the transversal plane and 34 ± 14° in the coronal plane. The mean distance from the acromion to the neurovascular bundle was 6.3 ± 1.3 cm (minimum: 4.0 cm). During surgical simulation there was sufficient excursion of the MTT without limitation of range of motion in a retracted scapular position but not in a protracted position. No injuries to the neurovascular structures were noted. CONCLUSION: Transfer of the acromial portion of the middle trapezius for replacement of an irreparable supraspinatus seems to be feasible in terms of size, vector, excursion, mobility and safety. However, some concern regarding sufficiency of transfer excursion remains as scapula protraction can increase the pathway length of the transfer. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Basic Science Study/Anatomical Study.

Mesenchymal Stromal Cell-Based Therapy-An Alternative to Arthroplasty for the Treatment of Osteoarthritis? A State of the Art Review of Clinical Trials.

Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common degenerative joint disorder worldwide and to date no regenerative treatment has been established in clinical practice. This review evaluates the current literature on the clinical translation of mesenchymal stromal cell (MSC)-based therapy in OA management with a focus on safety, outcomes and procedural specifics. PubMed, Cochrane Library and clinicaltrials.gov were searched for clinical studies using MSCs for OA treatment. 290 articles were initially identified and 42 articles of interest, including a total of 1325 patients, remained for further examination. Most of the included studies used adipose tissue-derived MSCs or bone-marrow-derived MSCs to treat patients suffering from knee OA. MSC-based therapy for knee OA appears to be safe and presumably effective in selected parameters. Yet, a direct comparison between studies was difficult due to a pronounced variance regarding methodology, assessed outcomes and evidence levels. Intensive scientific engagement is needed to identify the most effective source and dosage of MSCs for OA treatment in the future. Consent on outcome measures has to be reached and eventually patient sub-populations need to be identified that will profit most from MSC-based treatment for OA.