Iatrogenic nerve injury in primary and revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty.

INTRODUCTION: Iatrogenic nerve injury in orthopedic surgery can impair functional outcomes. During the last years, a steady increase in the number of performed reverse total shoulder arthroplasties has been reported and complications associated with this procedure are continuously described. Neurological complications, however, remain underreported. The aims of this study were to calculate the incidence of iatrogenic nerve injury after primary and revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty in a large patient cohort, as well as identify associated patient-and surgery-related risk factors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of our institution's internal Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty (RTSA) database from September 2005 to December 2019 was undertaken and 34 patients with iatrogenic nerve injuries were identified, resulting in a neurological complication rate of 2.6%. Group comparisons between patients with nerve injuries (n = 34) and the remaining cohort without nerve injuries (n = 1275) were performed to identify patient- and surgery-related risk factors. RESULTS: Of the 34 cases with iatrogenic nerve injury, damage to terminal nerve branches occurred in 21 patients, whereas a brachial plexus lesion was diagnosed in the other 13. Nerve revision surgery was necessary in four patients. At final follow-up 13 patients (45%) had residual motor deficits and 17 (59%) had residual sensory deficits. Higher numbers of previous surgeries of the affected shoulder correlated with subsequent nerve injury (p = 0.035). Operative time was significantly longer in patients, who developed a neurologic deficit, showing a correlation between duration of surgery and occurrence of nerve injury (p = 0.013). Patients with neurologic complications were significantly younger than patients without nerve damage (median 68 vs. 72 years, p = 0.017). CONCLUSIONS: In specialists' hands reverse total shoulder arthroplasty is a rather safe procedure regarding the risk of neurologic injury. However, multiple previous surgeries of the affected shoulder increase the risk of neurological complications. Cases with post-operative neurologic compromise are rare and usually recover well, with few patients suffering long-term functional deficits from iatrogenic nerve injury. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective cohort study.

Treatment of Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures Vancouver Type B2: Revision Arthroplasty Versus Open Reduction and Internal Fixation With Locking Compression Plate.

INTRODUCTION: The Vancouver algorithm recommends revision arthroplasty (RA) for Vancouver type B2 (VTB2) fractures. However, open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) using locking compression plates (LCP) may be a valid and less invasive alternative treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between January 2007 and March 2017, we retrospectively recruited all patients treated with either ORIF with LCP or RA for VTB2 fractures in our clinic. All of the following were reviewed: the length of hospital stay, the operating time, the need for blood transfusions during and/or after surgery, implant-related and patient-related complications, need for revision surgery, and the radiological outcome. Additionally, the functional outcome was investigated. RESULTS: Fifty-nine patients were recruited. Thirty-five (59.3%) patients underwent RA, while 24 (40.7%) patients received ORIF with LCP. The median surgical time was 137.50 minutes in the LCP group compared to 160.00 minutes in the RA group (P = .051). Three (12.5%) patients in the LCP group and 10 (28.6%) patients in the RA group experienced an implant-associated complication (P = .131). Patient-related complications occurred in 3 (12.5%) patients in the LCP group versus 6 (17.1%) patients in the RA group (P = .628). The mean preoperative Parker mobility score was 9 points in both groups and decreased in both groups to a mean of 5 points in the LCP and 7 points in the RA group. DISCUSSION: Open reduction and internal fixation with LCP seems to be a less invasive procedure for VTB2 fractures in comparison to RA. It is a bone-sparing procedure that can be advantageous for further revision operations. Moreover, some fractures can only be anatomically reduced by ORIF with LCP, whereas for proximal fractures with a radiologically unambiguously loosened stem RA might be advantageous. CONCLUSION: In line with previously published studies, our data suggest that ORIF using LCP is a valid treatment option for VTB2 fractures.