Comparing bone resorption after anatomical shoulder arthroplasty between various surgical procedures using a single-stem model

BackgroundIn shoulder arthroplasty, bone resorption around the stem can lead to stem loosening and makes surgery difficult at the time of revision. Proximal bone resorption after reverse shoulder arthroplasty can cause instability because of a decrease of deltoid wrapping effect. As factors of the stem itself, such as stem coating, shape, length, and use of bone cement, may also affect bone resorption, a single-stem model should be used to compare bone resorptions between different pathologies and surgical procedures. However, to date, a few reports have compared these differences in detail using a single-stem model. Therefore, we investigated the prevalence and location of humeral bone resorption in a single-stem model.MethodsThe study included 100 shoulders that underwent anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) or humeral head replacement (HHR) with a single uncemented humeral stem from 2008 to 2018. The patients were 31 men and 69 women. The mean age at surgery was 72.9 years (range, 41-86 years). The patients were divided into three groups: especially, 25, 61, and 14 shoulders received TSA for primary osteoarthritis without rotator cuff tears (TSA group), HHR using an anatomical head with rotator cuff repair for cuff tear arthropathy (CTA) (HHR group), and HHR using a CTA head without rotator cuff repair (CTA group), respectively. Patients were monitored for a mean of 56 months (range, 12-98 months). The location of bone resorption was divided into seven zones as follows: zone 1, greater tuberosity; zone 2, lateral diaphysis; zone 3, lateral diaphysis beyond the deltoid tuberosity; zone 4, tip of the stem; zone 5, medial diaphysis beyond the deltoid tuberosity; zone 6, medial diaphysis; and zone 7, calcar region. The degree of bone resorption was classified from grade 0 to 4.ResultsBone resorption of grade 3 or higher was significantly more frequent at the greater tuberosity in the HHR and CTA groups (P < .001 and P < .001, respectively) than that in the TSA group. Grade 4 bone resorption was significantly more frequent in the CTA than that in the TSA and HHR groups in zone 1 (P = .016 and P = .041, respectively).ConclusionThe state of attachment of the rotator cuff to the greater tuberosity might affect bone resorption at the greater tuberosity, such as the greater tuberosity after shoulder arthroplasty. In cases of shoulder arthroplasty for arthropathy with rotator cuff tear, performing rotator cuff repair might prevent bone resorption.Level of evidenceLevel IV; Prognosis Study     

Anatomic or reverse shoulder arthroplasty: indications and decision-making

Shoulder replacement surgery has become the gold standard treatment for end-stage glenohumeral arthropathies in patients who are fit for surgical treatment. The options include anatomic total shoulder replacement, reverse total shoulder replacement and humeral hemiarthroplasty procedures. Whilst for some patients and some indications there is little debate, decision-making for older patients with osteoarthritis remains one of the hot topics in shoulder surgery. In this article we will explore the treatment options, outcomes, and controversies.     

Prior surgical fixation of proximal humerus fractures is associated with increased complications following subsequent reverse shoulder arthroplasty

BackgroundThe objective of this study was to compare complication rates between patients undergoing reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) after a prior open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) for proximal humerus fracture (PHF) to those undergoing RSA as a primary treatment for PHFs, glenohumeral osteoarthritis, or rotator cuff tear arthropathy (CTA).MethodsPatients who underwent RSA between 2015 and 2020 were identified in the Mariner database. Patients were separated into 3 mutually exclusive groups: (1) RSA for osteoarthritis, rotator cuff tear, or CTA (Control-RSA); (2) RSA as a primary treatment for PHF (PHF-RSA); and (3) RSA for patients with prior ORIF of PHFs (ORIF-RSA). Ninety-day medical and 2-year postoperative surgical complications were identified. In addition, patients in the PHF-RSA group were subdivided into those undergoing RSA for PHF within 3 months of the fracture (acute) vs. those treated greater than 3 months from diagnosis (delayed). Multivariate regression was performed to control for differences in comorbidities and demographics.ResultsA total of 30,824 patients underwent primary RSA for arthritis or CTA, 5389 patients underwent RSA as a primary treatment for a PHF, and 361 patients underwent RSA after ORIF of a PHF. ORIF before RSA was associated with an increased risk of overall revision (odds ratio [OR] 2.45, P = .002), infection (OR 2.40, P < .001), instability (OR 2.43, P < .001), fracture (OR 3.24, P = .001), minor medical complications (OR 1.59, P = .008), and readmission (OR 2.55, P = .001) compared with the Control-RSA cohort. RSA as a primary treatment for PHF was associated with an increased risk of 2-year revision (OR 1.60, P < .001), infection (OR 1.51, P < .001), instability (OR 2.84, P < .001), and fracture (OR 2.54, P < .001) in addition to major medical complications (OR 2.02, P < .001), minor medical complications (OR 1.92, P < .001), 90-day emergency department visits (OR 1.26, P < .001) and 90-day readmission (OR 2.03, P < .001) compared with the Control-RSA cohort. The ORIF-RSA group had an increased risk of periprosthetic infection (OR 1.94, P = .002) when compared with the PHF-RSA cohort. There were no differences in medical or surgical complications in the RSA-PHF cohort between patients treated in an acute or delayed fashion.ConclusionRSA following ORIF of a PHF is associated with increased complications compared with patients undergoing RSA for nonfracture indications. Prior ORIF of a PHF is also an independent risk factor for postoperative infection after RSA compared with patients who undergo RSA as a primary operation for fracture. The timing of RSA as a primary operation for PHF does not appear to impact the rates of postoperative medical and surgical complications.     

Preoperative morphologic changes of the medial meniscus correlate with suture translations during knee flexion in pullout repair of medial meniscus posterior root tear

BackgroundMedial meniscus (MM) translates and extrudes posteriorly during knee flexion in MM posterior root tear (MMPRT) knees, and transtibial pullout repair of MMPRT has been performed to regulate the MM extrusion. This study aimed to calculate each suture translation during knee flexion in transtibial pullout repair of MMPRT, and to investigate the morphologic features of the MM that lead to longer suture translations during knee flexion.MethodsThirty patients with MMPRT who met the operative indication of pullout repair were enrolled and investigated prospectively. Pullout repair was performed by using two simple stitches (outer and inner sutures) and an all-inside suture in the posteromedial part of the MM. Each suture’s translation from 0° to 90° of knee flexion was measured intraoperatively. The MM morphologic features, including MM medial extrusion (MMME) and MM posterior height (MMPH), were measured using preoperative magnetic resonance imaging, and the correlation between these values and each suture translation was evaluated.ResultsThe average outer, inner, and all-inside suture translations were 4.8 mm, 3.9 mm, and 1.3 mm, respectively. Significant correlations were observed between the outer suture translation and MMME, and MMPH (p < 0.001 and <0.01, respectively). The thresholds for preoperative MMME and MMPH for longer outer suture translations (≥6 mm) were 2.1 mm and 5.4 mm, respectively.ConclusionsPreoperative longer MMME and higher MMPH were associated with longer meniscus translations during knee flexion during MMPRT repair.