1.Concomitant open distal clavicle excision is associated with greater improvement in range of motion without increased risk of acromial stress fracture after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a retrospective cohort study
Ajay C. KANAKAMEDALA ; Dhruv S. SHANKAR ; Neil GAMBHIR ; Matthew R. BOYLAN ; Michael BOIN ; Matthew G. ALBEN ; Mandeep S. VIRK ; Young W. KWON
Clinics in Shoulder and Elbow 2023;26(4):357-365
Background:
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of concomitant open distal clavicle excision (DCE) on postoperative clinical outcomes and incidence of acromial and scapular stress fractures (ASFs) in patients with symptomatic acromioclavicular joint osteoarthritis (ACJ OA) undergoing reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA).
Methods:
A single-surgeon retrospective cohort study was conducted including patients who underwent primary elective RTSA with or without DCE from 2015 to 2019 with a minimum 6-month follow-up period. Shoulder active range of motion (AROM) and visual analog scale (VAS) pain were recorded preoperatively and postoperatively. ASFs and other adverse events were identified using postoperative notes and/or radiographs. Characteristics and outcomes were compared between the RTSA and RTSA-DCE groups.
Results:
Forty-six RTSA patients (mean age, 67.9±8.7 years; 60.9% male; mean follow-up, 24.9±16.6 months) and 70 RTSA-DCE patients (mean age, 70.2±8.9 years; 20.0% male; mean follow-up, 22.7±12.9 months) were included. There were no significant intergroup differences in rates of ASF (RTSA, 0.0% vs. RTSA-DCE, 1.4%; P=1.00), stress reactions (RTSA, 8.7% vs. RTSA-DCE, 11.4%; P=0.76), reoperation, revision, or infection (all P>0.05), or in pre-to-postoperative reduction in VAS pain (P=0.17) at latest follow-up. However, the RTSA-DCE group had greater pre-to-postoperative improvement in flexion AROM (RTSA, 43.7°±38.5° vs. RTSA-DCE, 59.5°±33.4°; P=0.03) and internal rotation (IR) AROM (P=0.02) at latest follow-up.
Conclusions
Concomitant DCE in RTSA improves shoulder flexion and IR AROM, alleviates shoulder pain, and does not increase the risk of ASFs.Level of evidence: III.
2.Clinical outcomes of open Latarjet-Patte procedures performed for recurrent anterior shoulder instability with primary bone loss versus failed arthroscopic Bankart repair
Neil GAMBHIR ; Aidan G. PAPALIA ; Matthew G. ALBEN ; Paul ROMEO ; Gabriel LAROSE ; Soterios GYFTOPOULOS ; Andrew S. ROKITO ; Mandeep S. VIRK
Clinics in Shoulder and Elbow 2024;27(2):176-182
This study compares the outcomes of Latarjet-Patte procedures (LPs) performed for primary glenohumeral instability in the setting of critical bone loss (LP-BL) versus salvage surgery performed after a failed arthroscopic Bankart repair (LP-FB). Methods: LP’s performed by senior author from 2017 to 2021 were separated into cohorts by LP indication. Data abstracted from electronic medical records included demographic information, preoperative clinical scores, radiological imaging, and complications. Postoperative clinical outcome scores collected after a 2-year minimum follow-up included: patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) upper extremity (UE), PROMIS pain interference, PROMIS pain intensity, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), and visual analog scale pain scores. Results: A total of 47 patients (LP-BL: n=29, LP-FB: n=18) with a mean age of 29 years (range, 15–58 years) were included in this study. Both cohorts achieved good upper extremity functionality without significant differences as indicated by mean PROMIS UE (LP-BL: 52.6±10.0 vs. LP-FB: 54.6±7.6, P=0.442) and ASES score (LP-BL: 89.9±15.7 vs. LP-FB: 91.5±14.4, P=0.712). However, the LP-FB cohort reported lower levels of pain (LP-FB: 0.5±1.1 vs. LP-BL: 1.9±2.7, P=0.020) at their latest follow-up. There were no significant differences in complication rates including re-dislocation between cohorts (LP-BL: 2/29 [6.9%] vs. LP-FB: 2/18 [11.1%], P=0.629). Conclusions: When performed after failed Bankart repair, the LP results in similar postoperative functional outcomes and similar rates of complications and re-dislocations when compared to the primary indication of recurrent glenohumeral instability in the setting of critical bone loss. Level of evidence: III.