Search

Background Acromioclavicular (AC) separations are commonly seen shoulder injuries. Numerous surgical reconstruction techniques have been described. In this study, we present a series of patients who underwent an anatomic reconstruction using a synthetic ligament and allograft construct. Methods We performed a retrospective review of patients with type IV or V AC separations who underwent primary or revision AC reconstruction with a luggage-tag synthetic ligament and a semitendinosus allograft placed through the anatomic insertion sites of the coracoclavicular ligaments. Patient-reported outcomes, as well as complication rates, were recorded at a minimum 2-year follow-up. Results Ten patients with a mean age of 44.2 ± 14.9 years were included in the study. The mean Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score was 15.5 ± 15.4; mean Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation score, 81.8 ± 12.1; mean Simple Shoulder Test score, 11.4 ± 1.1; mean American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, 84.6 ± 15.7; mean Constant score, 82.5 ± 11.6; and mean visual analog scale score, 2 ± 2.6. Conclusion The technique using a luggage-tag synthetic ligament along with an anatomic allograft coracoclavicular ligament reconstruction is a safe, effective alternative to other techniques described in the literature.

Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) in the presence of significant glenoid bone loss remains a challenge. This study presents preliminary clinical and radiographic outcomes of primary and revision rTSA using a patient-matched, 3-dimensionally printed custom metal glenoid implant to address severe glenoid bone deficiency.Between September 2017 and November 2018, 19 patients with severe glenoid bone deficiency underwent primary (n = 9) or revision rTSA (n = 10) using the Comprehensive Vault Reconstruction System (VRS) (Zimmer Biomet, Warsaw, IN, USA) at a single institution. Preoperative and postoperative values for the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score, Constant score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Simple Shoulder Test score, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation score, and visual analog scale pain score and active range of motion were compared using the Wilcoxon signed rank test with the level of statistical significance set at P.05.Complications occurred in 4 patients (21%), including a nondisplaced greater tuberosity fracture treated conservatively in 1, intraoperative cortical perforation during humeral cement removal treated with an allograft strut in 1, and recurrent instability and hematoma formation treated with humeral component revision in 1. One patient with an early periprosthetic infection was treated with component removal and antibiotic spacer placement at an outside facility and was subsequently lost to follow-up. Eighteen patients with 1-year minimum clinical and radiographic follow-up were evaluated (mean, 18.2 months; range, 12-27 months). Significant improvements were noted in the mean Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score (57.4 ± 16.5 vs. 29.4 ± 19.5, P.001), mean Constant score (24.6 ± 10.2 vs. 60.4 ± 14.5, P.001), mean American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (32 ± 18.2 vs. 79 ± 15.6, P.001), mean Simple Shoulder Test score (4.5 ± 2.6 vs. 9.3 ± 1.8, P.001), mean Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation score (25.4 ± 13.7 vs. 72.2 ± 17.8, P.001), mean visual analog scale pain score (6.2 ± 2.9 vs. 0.7 ± 1.3, P.001), mean active forward flexion (53° ± 27° vs. 124° ± 23°, P.001), and mean active abduction (42° ± 17° to 77° ± 15°, P.001). Mean external rotation changed from 17° ± 19° to 32° ± 24° (P = .06). No radiographic evidence of component loosening, scapular notching, or hardware failure was observed at last follow-up in any patient.The preliminary results of rTSA using the VRS to manage severe glenoid bone deficiency are promising, but longer follow-up is necessary to determine the longevity of this implant.

Objectives: Treatment options for recurrent shoulder instability, in the setting of significant glenoid bone loss, consists of several iterations of bone stabilization procedures. However, advanced arthritic changes with the Laterjet procedure and rapid resorption changes with the iliac crest bone graft reconstruction has led into the search for more optimal surgical reconstruction options. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the clinical and functional outcomes of patients with recurrent shoulder instability, with significant glenoid bone loss, treated with fresh distal tibial allograft reconstruction with regards to recurrence, revision surgery, and complications. Methods: At a single institution, all consecutive patients with recurrent shoulder instability and at least 15% anterior glenoid bone loss, undergoing distal tibial allograft reconstruction, between 2011 to 2016, were identified by diagnostic and procedural codes. All clinical notes, diagnostic imaging, and operative reports were reviewed in detail. From these sources, demographics, operative techniques, and radiographic parameters were collected and measured. Functional outcome scores were prospectively collected from patients. The primary outcome of the study was the Disability of Arm, Shoulder, Hand (DASH) score. The secondary outcomes of the study were the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain score, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) score, recurrent instability, revision surgery, and complications. Results: At 6 years, there were a total of 36 distal tibial allograft reconstructions performed in patients with recurrent shoulder instability in the setting of significant glenoid bone loss. Amongst this cohort, average age was 35 years old with 72% of patients being male. The dominant extremity was involved in 20 (56%) of patients and 24 (67%) of patients had previous surgery to address episodes of shoulder instability. Follow-up, for the entire cohort was on average 15.5 months. In comparison to preoperative range of motion, after surgery there was significantly less abduction (P=0.01). At final follow-up, patients undergoing distial tibial allograft reconstruction showed trend towards significant improvement in the DASH score (preoperative DASH=50.7, postoperative DASH=37.1, P=0.09). In like manner, there was significant improvement in both the VAS score (P=0.001) and the SANE score (P=0.002). There was no significant difference in functional outcome scores between those patients who had failed a previous surgery for instability. Recurrent instability, after distal tibial allograft reconstruction, occurred in 4 (11%) of patients and 8 (22%) of patients underwent an additional surgical procedure. Complications occurred in 31% of patients, with the most common complication being rupture of the subscapularis. Conclusion: This study provides functional outcomes in one of the largest consecutive cohort of patients undergoing distal tibial allograft reconstruction for recurrent shoulder instability due to significant glenoid bone loss. The study suggests that distal tibial allograft reconstruction may provide improved functional outcomes in patients with recurrent shoulder instability. After this procedure, 89% of patients did not experience any additional episodes of shoulder instability. Despite these encouraging results, complications are common after this procedure, with 31% of patients experiencing a complication. Table 2. Range of Motion & Physical Examination in patients with Tibial Plafond Allograft Reconstruction Tibial Plafond Allograft (n = 36) Preoperative Postoperative P-Value Range of Motion (Active) Abduction 102.2 ± 26.8 82.6 ± 14.8 0.01 Forward Flexion 125.8 ± 31.3 137.9 ± 32.9 0.25 External Rotation 46.1 ± 9.8 43.2 ± 10.1 0.52 Internal Rotation 47.8 ± 9.3 52.3 ± 12.5 0.46 Continuous data are reported as mean ± standard deviation. Categorical data reported as number (%). Table 3. Functional Outcomes at Final Follow-Up of Tibial Platfond Allograft Reconstruction Tibial Plafond Allograft (n = 36) Preoperative Postoperative P-Value Primary Outcome DASH 50.7 ± 27.8 37.1 ± 27.4 0.09 Secondary Outcome Vas 5.62 ± 2.7 43.2 ± 10.1 0.001 SANE 32.5 ± 18.9 75.8 ± 21.9 0.002 Continuous data are reported as mean ± standard deviation.

Objectives: Treatment options for massive irreparable rotator cuff tears, in middle aged adults, consists of tendon transfer or superior capsular reconstruction (SCR). The purpose of this study was to evaluate if transfer of the latissimus dorsi tendon transfer is enhanced with combination of superior capsular reconstruction for treatment of massive irreparable rotator cuff tears. Methods: At a single institution, all consecutive patients undergoing transfer of the latissimus dorsi tendon with or without superior capsular reconstruction, between 2013 and 2016, for treatment of irreparable rotator cuff tears were evaluated. SCR, was indicated, in addition to latissimus transfer, for patients with impaired preoperative active abduction. All clinical notes, diagnostic imaging, and operative reports were reviewed in detail. Demographics, operative techniques, and radiographic parameters were collected and measured. Functional outcome scores were prospectively collected from patients. The primary outcome of the study was the Disability of Arm, Shoulder, Hand (DASH) score. The secondary outcomes of the study were the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain score, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) score, and the American Shoulder and Elbow Society (ASES) score. Results: At 3 years, there were a total of 26 latissimus dorsi tendon transfers performed in patients with irreparable rotator cuff tears. Of these, 8 patients underwent only latissimus dorsi tendon transfer and 18 patients underwent latissimus dorsi tendon transfer combined with a superior capsular reconstruction. Average age was 53 years old with the majority of patients being male (88%). The dominant extremity was involved in 22 (85%) of latissimus transfers and 14 (53%) of patients had previous surgery to address a rotator cuff tear. Follow-up, for the entire cohort, was on average 29 months. At final follow-up, there was no significant difference in physical examination or radiographic measurements between patients with latissimus transfer alone and those with latissimus transfer with SCR. All patients, undergoing either technique, showed significant improvement in both the DASH score (preoperative DASH=59.6, postoperative DASH=39.9, P=0.049) and VAS score (preoperative VAS=6.6, postoperative VAS=3.3, P=0.0006). However, those patients undergoing revision surgery, regardless of technique, showed significantly less improvement in the DASH score (P=0.005), VAS score (P=0.002), SANE score (P=0.005), and the ASES score (P=0.001). Transfer of the Latissimus tendon with SCR, in comparison to only tendon transfer, did not show any significant difference in the final DASH score (p-value=0.72). At the same time, there was no significant difference between latissimus transfer, with or without SCR, in the secondary outcomes of the VAS score(P=0.97), the SANE score(P=0.63), or the ASES score (P=0.74). Conclusion: This is the first study to report the outcomes of latissimus dorsi tendon transfer with superior capsular reconstruction in comparison to only latissimus dorsi tendon transfer for treatment of irreparable rotator cuff tears. The study suggests that transfer of the latissimus dorsi tendon in combination with superior capsular reconstruction, at short term follow-up of 2 years, may not significantly influence functional outcome. Rather, patients undergoing revision surgery, regardless of technique, may demonstrate smaller improvements in functional outcomes. Table 2. Range of Motion & Physical Examination in Latissimus Dorsi Tendon Transfer with/without SCR Lat Only (n=8) Lat + SCR (n=18) Preoperative Postoperative P-Value Preoperative Postoperative P-Value Range of Motion (Active) Abduction 135 ± 21.2 76.4 ± 18 0.04 75.4 ± 26.0 71.5 ± 22 0.80 Forward Flexion 106.9 ± 36.7 135.7 ± 32.2 0.15 103.5 ± 32.2 110.6 ± 45.4 0.35 External Rotation 36 ± 11.4 42.9 ± 15 0.80 25.3 ± 18.6 38.5 ± 16.3 0.04 Internal Rotation 65 ± 22.9 59.3 ± 12.4 0.55 54.4 ± 13.3 63.1 ± 13.0 0.08 Hornblower Sign 2 (25%) 2 (25%) 0.98 14 (78%) 2 (11%) 0.07 External Rotation Lag 6 (75%) 2 (25%) 0.34 17 (94%) 3 (17%) 0.01 Continuous data are reported as mean ± standard deviation. Categorical data reported as number (%). Table 4. Functional Outcomes at Final Follow-Up of Latissimus Dorsi Tendon Transfer with/without SCR Lat Only (n=8) Lat + SCR (n=18) Mean (Std Dev) Mean (Std Dev) P-Value Primary Outcome DASH 47.0 ± 39.8 42.5 ± 27.5 0.72 Secondary Outcome Vas 3.14 ± 3.5 3.4 ± 3.5 0.97 SANE 54.7 ± 38.5 60.9 ± 22.1 0.63 ASES 65.8 ± 36.3 60.6 ± 30.9 0.74 Constance 63.8 ± 31.0 50.3 ± 23.3 0.34

An accurate preoperative measurement of glenoid orientation is crucial for evaluating pathologies and successful total shoulder arthroplasty. Existing methods may be labor-intensive, observer-dependent, and sensitive to the misalignment between the scapula plane and CT scanning direction. In this study, we proposed a computation framework and performed an automated analysis of the glenoid orientation based on 3D surface data. Three-dimensional models of 12 scapulae were analyzed. The glenoid cavity and external anatomical features were automatically extracted from these 3D models. Glenoid version was calculated using the scapula plane and the fulcrum axis alternatively. Glenoid inclination was measured both relative to transverse axis of the scapula and the medial pole-inferior tip axis. The mean (±SD) of the fulcrum-based glenoid version was -0.55° (±4.17°), while the scapular-plane-based glenoid version was -5.05° (±3.50°). The mean (±SD) of glenoid inclinations based on the medial pole and inferior tip was 12.75° (±5.03°) while the mean (±SD) of the glenoid inclination based on the medial pole and glenoid center was 4.63° (±4.86°). Our computational framework was able to extract the reproducible morphological measures free of inter- and intra- observer variability. For the first time in 3D, we showed that the fulcrum axis was practically perpendicular to the glenoid plane normal (radial line), and thus extended the fulcrum-based glenoid version for quantifying 3D glenoid orientation. © 2015 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Orthop Res 34:692-698, 2016.