Bony Increased Offset-Reversed Shoulder Arthroplasty (BIO-RSA).

INTRODUCTION: Bony increased offset-reversed shoulder arthroplasty (BIO-RSA) is an effective and safe means of achieving lateralization of the prosthetic center of rotation in reverse shoulder arthroplasty. STEP 1 PREOPERATIVE PLANNING: Confirm the indication for surgery and obtain radiographs and 3-dimensional (3D) imaging (computed tomography [CT] or magnetic resonance imaging [MRI] scans) to confirm the suitability for a BIO-RSA. STEP 2 PATIENT POSITIONING AND SURGICAL APPROACH VIDEO 1: With the patient in the beach-chair position, approach the shoulder via a standard deltopectoral approach. STEP 3 HARVESTING OF HUMERAL GRAFT AND INITIAL HUMERAL PREPARATION: Dislocate the humeral head anteriorly and use the instrumentation to harvest a 29-mm fully cancellous graft of desired thickness from the humeral head. STEP 4 GLENOID EXPOSURE PREPARATION AND PROSTHETIC IMPLANTATION: Carefully and meticulously expose and prepare the glenoid for prosthetic implantation. STEP 5 HUMERAL PREPARATION AND PROSTHETIC IMPLANTATION: Prepare and implant the humeral prosthesis as per the standard surgical technique described for implantation of the Aequalis Reversed prosthesis10. STEP 6 POSTOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT: Postoperative management is the same as that for a nonlateralized reverse prosthesis, with no alteration in rehabilitation required. RESULTS: In our original series of 42 patients with a minimum follow-up of 2 years (mean, 28 months), the glenoid bone graft incorporated completely in 41 patients and partially in 1 patient (Fig. 5)6.

Metal-backed glenoid implant with polyethylene insert is not a viable long-term therapeutic option.

BACKGROUND: The aims of this study were to determine the survival of anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty with uncemented metal-backed (MB) glenoid components with a polyethylene (PE) insert in primary osteoarthritis, to assess the reasons for revision surgery, and to identify patients and diagnostic factors that influence failure rates. METHODS: Between 1994 and 1999, 165 patients (mean age, 68 years) with primary osteoarthritis were treated with anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty using an uncemented MB/PE glenoid component. Outcomes were assessed both clinically and radiologically with a minimum of 2 years of follow-up. A prosthetic survival curve was constructed with the end point defined as either partial or complete revision, using 100% confidence intervals. RESULTS: Survival rate free of revision was 46% (100% confidence interval, 32%-54%) at 12 years. At a mean follow-up of 8.5 years (range, 2-16 years), revision was required in 61 patients (37%); 80% of shoulders undergoing revision (49 of 61) had evidence of PE wear. Glenoid loosening (because of osteolysis secondary to wear debris), soft tissue deficiency, and prosthetic instability were the most common modes of failure. Younger patients and biconcave glenoids (with posterior humeral subluxation) have a negative effect on implant survival. Proximal humerus osteolysis was significantly more frequent in shoulders with PE wear. Exchange of the PE insert (with conservation of the MB tray) was possible in only 3% of the revised shoulders. CONCLUSION: Uncemented MB glenoid resurfacing is not a viable long-term therapeutic option because of accelerated PE wear leading to early revision surgery. Conservation of the MB tray with reinsertion of a new PE insert is rarely possible because of glenoid bone loss, implant loosening, soft tissue deficiency, and prosthetic instability. Younger patients and biconcave glenoids have a negative effect on implant survival.

Revision surgery of reverse shoulder arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: There is limited knowledge regarding revision of reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA). This study assesses reasons for failure in RSA and evaluates the outcomes of revision RSA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 1997 and 2009, 37 patients with RSA had revision surgery. Clinical and radiologic examinations performed preoperatively and at 3 months, at 6 months, and then annually postoperatively were analyzed retrospectively. Patients were reviewed with a minimum 2-year follow-up. RESULTS: The most common causes for RSA revision were prosthetic instability (48%); humeral loosening, derotation, or fracture (21%); and infection (19%). Only 2 patients (3%) had to be reoperated on for glenoid loosening. More than 1 re-intervention was performed in 11 patients (30%) because of recurrence of the same complication or appearance of a new complication. Underestimation of humeral shortening and excessive medialization were common causes of recurrent prosthetic instability. Proximal humeral bone loss was found to be a cause for humeral loosening or derotation. Previous surgery was found as a potential cause of low-grade infection. At a mean follow-up of 34 months, 32 patients (86%) had retained the RSA whereas 2 patients (6%) had undergone conversion to humeral hemiarthroplasty and 3 (8%) to a resection arthroplasty. The mean Constant score in patients who retained the RSA increased from 19 points before revision to 47 points at last follow-up (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Even if revision may lead to several procedures in the same patient, preservation or replacement of the RSA is largely possible, allowing for a functional shoulder. Full-length scaled radiographs of both humeri are recommended to properly assess humeral shortening and excessive medialization before revision.

Prognostic factors and limitations of anatomic shoulder arthroplasty for the treatment of posttraumatic cephalic collapse or necrosis (type-1 proximal humeral fracture sequelae).

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the prognostic factors and limitations of anatomic unconstrained shoulder arthroplasty, performed without tuberosity osteotomy, for the treatment of secondary glenohumeral arthritis following posttraumatic cephalic collapse or necrosis of the humeral head, defined as type-1 fracture sequelae. METHODS: Fifty-five patients with type-1 fracture sequelae treated with anatomic shoulder arthroplasty were included in this retrospective single-center cohort study. All anatomic humeral prostheses were implanted without performing a greater tuberosity osteotomy. Glenoid resurfacing was performed in forty-four patients (80%). Clinical and radiographic analysis was performed at a mean of fifty-two months (range, twenty-four to 180 months) postoperatively. RESULTS: Four reoperations (7%) were performed, including two revisions in patients who required glenoid resurfacing because of glenoid erosion after hemiarthroplasty. At the time of the latest follow-up, 93% of patients were satisfied or very satisfied, and the mean Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV) was 81%. There were significant improvements in the mean Constant score (from 32 to 69 points), active anterior elevation (from 88° to 141°), external rotation (from 6° to 34°), and internal rotation (from the buttock to L3). Significantly poorer results were associated with proximal humeral deformity in varus and with fatty infiltration of the rotator cuff muscles. Patients with proximal humeral deformity, specifically varus or valgus malunion of the greater tuberosity, had a mean Constant score that was 10 points lower and active elevation that was almost 20° less than patients with no such deformity. The poorest results were observed in patients with varus malunion. CONCLUSIONS: Our study confirmed that the outcomes of anatomic shoulder arthroplasty for the treatment of type-1 fracture sequelae are good and predictable when deformation of the proximal humerus is acceptable(i.e., when no greater tuberosity osteotomy is necessary). The results were negatively affected by proximal humeral varus deformity and by fatty infiltration of the rotator cuff on imaging studies. In such cases, reverse shoulder arthroplasty may be more appropriate, especially in elderly patients.

Bony increased-offset reversed shoulder arthroplasty: minimizing scapular impingement while maximizing glenoid fixation.

BACKGROUND: Scapular notching, prosthetic instability, limited shoulder rotation and loss of shoulder contour are associated with conventional medialized design reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Prosthetic (ie, metallic) lateralization increases torque at the baseplate-glenoid interface potentially leading to failure. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We asked whether bony lateralization of reverse shoulder arthroplasty would avoid the problems caused by humeral medialization without increasing torque or shear force applied to the glenoid component. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We prospectively followed 42 patients with rotator cuff deficiency treated with bony increased-offset reverse shoulder arthroplasty. A cylinder of autologous cancellous bone graft, harvested from the humeral head, was placed between the reamed glenoid surface and baseplate. Graft and baseplate fixation was achieved using a lengthened central peg (25 mm) and four screws. Patients underwent clinical, radiographic, and CT assessment at a minimum of 2 years after surgery. RESULTS: The humeral graft incorporated completely in 98% of cases (41 of 42) and partially in one. At a mean of 28 months postoperatively, no graft resorption, glenoid loosening, or postoperative instability was observed. Inferior scapular notching occurred in 19% (eight of 42). The absolute Constant-Murley score improved from 31 to 67. Thirty-six patients (86%) were able to internally rotate sufficiently to reach their back over the sacrum. CONCLUSIONS: Grafting of the glenoid surface during reverse shoulder arthroplasty effectively creates a long-necked scapula, providing the benefits of lateralization. Bony increased-offset reverse shoulder arthroplasty is associated with low rates of inferior scapular notching, improved shoulder rotation, no prosthetic instability and improved shoulder contour. In contrast to metallic lateralization, bony lateralization has the advantage of maintaining the prosthetic center of rotation at the prosthesis-bone interface, thus minimizing torque on the glenoid component. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Detection of occult wrist fractures by quantitative radioscintigraphy: a prospective study on selected patients.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the value of quantitative radioscintigraphy (QRS) in the diagnosis of wrist trauma occult fractures. PURPOSE: Because of the risk of non-union, the diagnosis of wrist fractures, including scaphoid fractures, is essential but remains difficult despite many imaging modalities. The aim of the study was to assess the benefits of QRS in the diagnosis of occult post-trauma wrist fractures. METHODS: This prospective study included all patients presenting at the orthopaedic department at Brest University Hospital for wrist pain after trauma with initial normal plain radiographs. Patients with normal radiographs but strongly suspected of fracture underwent QRS consisting of three-phase bone scintigraphy with quantitative analysis. When a fracture was suspected the radiograph and scintigraphy were fused to precisely locate the fracture if the index was higher than 2. If the index was lower than 1.9, fracture was excluded. Between these two indices, other investigations, such as magnetic resonance imaging, were performed. All patients were followed for at least 3 months and reviewed by the same surgeon. Patients underwent a physical examination and possibly other investigations. RESULTS: From April 2006 to July 2008, 87 patients were enrolled (34 women, 53 men; median age 29 years; range, 15-87 years). Among the 46 pathologic bone scintigrams, 55 occult fractures were highlighted. At follow-up, none presented non-union. One had an undetermined QRS. Among the 40 negative results for QRS at follow-up, only one had a non-union. Sensitivity and negative predictive value were 97 and 98%, respectively for carpal fractures. CONCLUSION: This study highlights the benefit of QRS, which allows the detection of most occult carpal fractures and reduces the risks of complications such as pseudoarthritis.

Ectopic insertion of the pectoralis minor: implication in the arthroscopic treatment of shoulder stiffness.

Although ectopic insertion of the pectoralis minor has been previously described in the literature, the role of such anatomical variations in producing shoulder symptoms (i.e., pain and/or stiffness) remains controversial. We describe here a case of shoulder stiffness in which an ectopic insertion of the pectoralis minor over the supraspinatus tendon was found to be the main reason for severe contracture in external rotation and anterior thoracic pain. During arthroscopy, external rotation could not be restored despite anterior and inferior capsulotomy and release of the capsule of the rotator interval. Complete restoration of the passive external rotation was obtained only after complete release of the pectoralis minor from the supraspinatus. This observation underlines the importance of recognising such an anatomical variation when performing an arthroscopic arthrolysis in a stiff shoulder.