Learning Curve for Arthroscopic Shoulder Latarjet Procedure Shows Shorter Operating Time and Fewer Complications with Experience.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the learning curve of the arthroscopic Latarjet procedure in a consecutive series of 103 shoulders in 102 patients by comparing the early clinical and radiologic outcomes and complications of the first 25 patients with the latter 25 patients. Our hypothesis was that the studied parameters would be enhanced over time. METHODS: A consecutive cohort of 103 shoulders in 102 patients treated with arthroscopic Latarjet procedure was prospectively registered from December 2014 until November 2019. Patients in this cohort represent the first cases of arthroscopic Latarjet for the 2 shoulder surgeons. All patients had a double screw fixation technique. The Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI) score preoperatively and at 1-year follow-up and 3-dimensional computed tomography scans preoperatively, postoperatively, and at 1-year follow-up were prospectively registered. Patient demographics, intraoperative data, complications, and reoperations were all recorded. In total, 85 of 103 shoulders (83%) had complete data sets. Patient demographics, WOSI scores, operating time, complications, satisfaction rate, and radiology scores in the first and last 25 patients were compared to evaluate learning curve. RESULTS: There was longer operating time in the early group compared with the latter (130 vs 105 minutes, P = .001) and number of complications was reduced with experience (16 vs 4, P = .0005). Serious complications requiring a reoperation were 4 (16%) in the early group compared to 1 (4%) in the latter group (P = .157). Clinical results were good with major improvement in WOSI scores and 84 % satisfaction rates in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Arthroscopic Latarjet was associated with a learning curve where the early group had longer operating time and greater rates of complications. This is a procedure with few serious complications, acceptable surgery time and learning curve. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative observation trial.

Randomized trial of hemiarthroplasty versus internal fixation for femoral neck fractures: no differences at 6 years.

BACKGROUND: Hemiarthroplasty has been shown superior to internal fixation for displaced femoral neck fractures (FNF) in the first 2 years. However, there are unanswered questions about the performance of hemiarthroplasty over the longer term compared with internal fixation. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We sought to compare hemiarthroplasty with internal fixation in terms of (1) outcomes scores for pain, hip function, and quality of life at a minimum of 5 years after surgery in a randomized trial. A secondary purpose was to compare (2) patient survival and (3) frequency of reoperation in the two groups. METHODS: A total of 222 consecutive patients older than 60 years, including those cognitively impaired, with FNF were randomized to either internal fixation with two parallel screws or bipolar hemiarthroplasty. At a minimum followup of 4.9 years (mean, 5.9 years; range, 4.9-7.2 years), 68 of the 70 surviving patients were examined by a study nurse and study physiotherapist blinded to initial treatment. Questionnaires on hip function (Harris hip score), quality of life (Eq5D), and activity of daily living function (Barthel ADL) were administered. The Barthel ADL index score was split into good function (score 95 or 100) and reduced function (score below 95). RESULTS: The mean survival of the groups was similar with 66.4% (73 of 110) of the patients undergoing hemiarthroplasty and 70.5% (79 of 112) of the patients undergoing internal fixation having died since surgery (p = 0.51). Only 12 of 31 living patients in the internal fixation group had retained their native hips at a mean of 6 years. Between 2 and 6 years, there were two new major reoperations (both in the internal fixation group, for avascular necrosis and deep wound infection). The mean Harris hip score was 66 (SD 19) and 67 (SD 20) in the internal fixation and hemiarthroplasty groups, respectively (p = 0.96). The mean Eq5D index was 0.50 (SD 0.40) in the internal fixation group and 0.34 (SD 0.36) in the hemiarthroplasty group (p = 0.10). Function in terms of ADLs was comparable between the groups; of the patients in the internal fixation group, 42% reported good function on the Barthel ADL index, and the corresponding number in the hemiarthroplasty group was 51% (p = 0.44). CONCLUSIONS: Hemiarthroplasty has predictable and good long-term results after FNF and is the treatment of choice compared with internal fixation. Further studies will evaluate if total hip arthroplasty has advantages over hemiarthroplasty in patients with fracture with long life expectancy.

[The treatment of femoral neck fractures]. / Behandling av lårhalsbrudd.

BACKGROUND: About 5000 people fracture their femoral neck every year in Norway. Mean age is about 83 years and about 3/4 are women. For more than 50 years the alternatives have been internal fixation or arthroplasty. In Norway, the tradition has been internal fixation. Recent studies, however, support the use of arthroplasty. The article provides a review on the treatment of femoral neck fractures. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The article is based on literature identified through a non-systematic search in Medline. RESULTS: Internal fixation has a higher risk of treatment failure (30 - 40 % in displaced fractures) than arthroplasty (less than 10 %). In elderly patients with displaced fractures, arthroplasty provides better hip function than internal fixation. Most patients should be treated with hemiarthroplasty, but total hip arthroplasty may give better function in the healthiest and fittest of the elderly patients. In patients younger than 60 - 65 years, internal fixation should be attempted, even though the failure rate is about 30 %. Undisplaced fractures should be treated with internal fixation, irrespective of age. The risk of treatment failure is about 10 %. INTERPRETATION: Elderly patients with displaced femoral neck fractures should be treated with arthroplasty, usually hemiarthroplasty. Osteosynthesis should normally be reserved for undisplaced fractures and fractures in young and otherwise healthy patients.