Bursal acromial resurfacing improves shoulder biomechanics in a cadaveric model of massive rotator cuff tear.

PURPOSE: To investigate the effectiveness of bursal acromial resurfacing (acromiograft) on acromiohumeral distance, subacromial contact area, and pressure in a cadaveric model of massive rotator cuff tear. METHODS: Eight fresh-frozen cadaveric shoulders were tested using a customized shoulder testing system. Humeral head translation, subacromial contact pressure, and the subacromial contact area were evaluated across four conditions: (1) intact shoulder; (2) simulated massive rotator cuff tear; (3) 3-mm acromiograft condition; (4) 6-mm acromiograft condition. The acromiografts were simulated using Teflon and a reported technique. The values were measured at 0°, 20°, and 40° abduction and 0°, 30°, 60°, and 90° external rotation (ER) for each abduction status. RESULTS: Compared with a massive cuff tear, the 6-mm acromiograft significantly reduced the superior translation of the humeral head at all abduction/ER angles (P<0.05). The 3-mm acromiograft also decreased superior translation of the humeral head compared to massive cuff tear, but not all differences were significant. The 3- and 6-mm acromiografts significantly decreased the subacromial contact pressure and increased the subacromial contact area in almost all positions (P<0.05). The 3-mm acromiograft maintained biomechanical properties similar to the intact condition, whereas the 6-mm acromiograft increased the contact area. CONCLUSIONS: This biomechanical study demonstrated that both 3- and 6- mm acromiografts using Teflon in a cadaveric model of a massive cuff tear resulted in recentering of the superiorly migrated humeral head, increased the subacromial contact area, and decreased the subacromial contact pressure. The 3- mm graft was sufficient for achieving the intended therapeutic effects. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The acromiograft can normalize altered biomechanics and may aid the treatment of massive cuff tears. As grafting the acromion's undersurface is new with limited clinical outcomes, further observation is crucial. Using Teflon instead of ADM allograft for bursal acromial resurfacing could yield different results, requiring careful interpretation.

Biomechanical Comparison Between Superior Capsular Reconstruction and Lower Trapezius Tendon Transfer in Irreparable Posterosuperior Rotator Cuff Tears.

BACKGROUND: Superior capsular reconstruction (SCR) and lower trapezius tendon transfer (LTT) have recently been used to manage irreparable posterosuperior rotator cuff tears (PSRCTs). There has been a paucity of comparative biomechanical considerations between the 2 procedures. PURPOSE: To compare the glenohumeral stability and biomechanical properties between SCR and LTT in PSRCTs involving the entire infraspinatus tendon region. STUDY DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study. METHODS: Eight fresh-frozen cadaveric shoulders were tested at 0°, 20°, and 40° of shoulder abduction. Maximum internal, external, and total humeral range of motion (ROM), superior translation of the humeral head, and subacromial contact characteristics were compared among 4 conditions: (1) intact rotator cuff, (2) PSRCTs involving the entire infraspinatus tendon region, (3) LTT using Achilles allograft (12 N and 24 N of loading), and (4) SCR using fascia lata allograft. RESULTS: Although a decrease in total ROM was noted in LTT with 12 N compared with the tear condition, LTT with both 12 N and 24 N as well as SCR did not restrict total rotational ROM compared with the intact condition. LTT had decreased total ROM compared with tear condition at 20° of abduction (P = .042), while no significant decrease was confirmed at all abduction angles after SCR. SCR and LTT with 24 N decreased superior translation compared with the PSRCT condition at 0° and 20° of abduction (P < .037) but not significantly at 40° of abduction, whereas LTT with a 24-N load decreased glenohumeral superior translation at all abduction angles (P < .039). Both SCR and LTT decreased subacromial contact pressure compared with the tear condition (P < .014) at all abduction angles. SCR decreased subacromial contact pressure at 0° and 40° of abduction (P = .019 and P = .048, respectively) compared with LTT with 12 N of loading, while there was no difference between SCR and LTT with 24 N of loading in all abduction angles. SCR increased the contact area compared with the PSRCT condition at all abduction angles (P < .023), whereas LTT did not increase the contact area. CONCLUSION: SCR and LTT decreased glenohumeral superior translation and contact pressure compared with PSRCT conditions. The LTT was superior to SCR in terms of superior translation of the humeral head at a higher shoulder abduction angle, whereas the SCR showed more advantageous subacromial contact characteristics compared with LTT. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: These biomechanical findings provide insights into these 2 fundamentally different procedures for the treatment of young and active patients with PSRCTs involving the entire infraspinatus tendon region.

Varus-valgus alignment of humeral short stem in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: does it really matter?

BACKGROUND: The utilization of short humeral stems in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty has gained attention in recent times. However, concerns regarding the risk of misalignment during implant insertion are associated with their use. METHODS: Eight fresh-frozen cadaveric shoulders were prepared for dissection and biomechanical testing. A bespoke humeral implant was fabricated to facilitate assessment of neutral, varus, and valgus alignments using a single stem, and 10° was established as the maximum permissible angle for misalignments. Shift in humerus position and changes in deltoid length attributable to misalignments relative to the neutral position were evaluated using a Microscribe 3DLx system. The impingement-free range of motion, encompassing abduction, adduction, internal rotation, and external rotation (ER), was gauged using a digital goniometer. The capacity for abduction was evaluated at maximal abduction angles under successive loading on the middle deltoid. A specialized traction system coupled with a force transducer was employed to measure anterior dislocation forces. RESULTS: Relative to the neutral alignment, valgus alignment resulted in a more distal (10.5 ± 2.4 mm) and medial (8.3 ± 2.2 mm) translation of the humeral component, whereas the varus alignment resulted in the humerus shifting more superiorly (11.2 ± 1.3 mm) and laterally (9.9 ± 0.9 mm) at 0° abduction. The valgus alignment exhibited the highest abduction angle than neutral alignment (86.2°, P < .001). Conversely, the varus alignment demonstrated significantly higher adduction (18.4 ± 7.4°, P < .001), internal rotation (68.9 ± 15.0°, P = .014), and ER (45.2 ± 10.5°, P = .002) at 0° abduction compared to the neutral alignments. Anterior dislocation forces were considerably lower (23.8 N) in the varus group compared to the neutral group at 0°ER (P = .047). Additionally, abduction capability was markedly higher in varus alignment at low deltoid loads than the neutral alignment (5N, P = .009; 7.5 N, P = .007). CONCLUSIONS: The varus position enhances rotational range of motion (ROM) but increases instability, while the valgus position does not significantly impact ROM or instability compared to the neutral position.

Middle trapezius tendon transfer using Achilles allograft for irreparable isolated supraspinatus tendon tears effectively restores the superior stability of the humeral head without restricting range of motion: a biomechanical study.

BACKGROUND: Middle trapezius tendon (MTT) transfer has been suggested for promising treatment of irreparable isolated supraspinatus tendon tears (IISTTs). However, there have been no attempts to assess the biomechanical efficacy of MTT transfer. This study aims to evaluate the biomechanical efficacy of MTT transfer in the setting of IISTTs. METHODS: Eight fresh frozen cadaveric shoulders were tested in 3 conditions: (1) intact rotator cuff, (2) IISTT, and (3) MTT transfer using Achilles allograft for IISTTs. Total humeral rotational range of motion (ROM), superior translation of the humeral head, and subacromial contact characteristics were measured at 0°, 20°, and 40° glenohumeral abduction (representing 0°, 30°, and 60° shoulder abduction). Superior translation and subacromial contact pressures were measured at 0°, 30°, 60°, and 90° external rotation (ER). Two different MTT muscle loading conditions were investigated. A linear mixed effects model and Tukey post hoc test were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: Total ROM was significantly increased after IISTT at 20° abduction (P = .037). There were no changes in total ROM following MTT transfer compared to the IISTT condition (P > .625 for all comparisons). The IISTT condition significantly increased superior translation compared to the intact rotator cuff condition in 0° and 20° abduction with all ER angles (P < .001), 40° abduction-30° ER (P = .016), and 40° abduction-60° ER (P = .002). MTT transfer significantly decreased superior translation of the humeral head at all abduction angles compared to the IISTT condition (P < .026). MTT transfer significantly decreased peak contact pressure by 638.7 kPa (normal loading) and 726.8 kPa (double loading) at 0° abduction-30° ER compared to the IISTT condition (P < .001). Mean contact pressure was decreased by 102.8 kPa (normal loading) and 118.0 kPa (double loading) at 0° abduction-30° ER (P < .001) and 101.0 kPa (normal loading) and 99.2 kPa (double loading) at 0° abduction-60° ER (P < .001). MTT transfer at 20° abduction-30° ER with 24 N loading significantly decreased contact pressure by 91.2 kPa (P = .035). CONCLUSIONS: The MTT transfer biomechanically restored the superior humeral head translation and reduced the subacromial contact pressure in a cadaveric model of IISTT, while not restricting total ROM. These findings suggest that MTT transfer may have potential as a surgical treatment for IISTTs.

Artificial Intelligence in Modern Orthopaedics: Current and Future Applications.

➢: With increasing computing power, artificial intelligence (AI) has gained traction in all aspects of health care delivery. Orthopaedics is no exception because the influence of AI technology has become intricately linked with its advancement as evidenced by increasing interest and research. ➢: This review is written for the orthopaedic surgeon to develop a better understanding of the main clinical applications and potential benefits of AI within their day-to-day practice. ➢: A brief and easy-to-understand foundation for what AI is and the different terminology used within the literature is first provided, followed by a summary of the newest research on AI applications demonstrating increased accuracy and convenience in risk stratification, clinical decision-making support, and robotically assisted surgery.