Search

Background: The aim of this study was to compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of treatment of symptomatic mal- and/or nonunion of midshaft clavicle fractures using radiographically based free-hand open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) or computer-assisted 3D-planned, personalized corrective osteotomies performed using patient-specific instrumentation (PSI) and ORIF. The hypotheses were that (1) patients treated with computer-assisted planning and PSI would have a better clinical outcome, and (2) computer-assisted surgical planning would achieve a more accurate restoration of anatomy compared to the free-hand technique. Methods: Between 1998 and 2020, 13 patients underwent PSI, and 34 patients underwent free-hand ORIF and/or corrective osteotomy. After application of exclusion criteria, 12/13 and 11/34 patients were included in the study. The clinical examination included measurement of the active range of motion and assessment of the absolute and relative Constant–Murley Scores and the subjective shoulder value. Subjective satisfaction with the cosmetic result was assessed on a Likert scale from 0 to 100 (subjective aesthetic value). 11/13 and 6/11 patients underwent postoperative computed tomography evaluation of both clavicles. Computed tomography scans were segmented to generate 3D surface models. After projection onto the mirrored contralateral side, displacement analysis was performed. Finally, bony union was documented. The average follow-up time was 43 months in the PSI and 50 months in the free-hand cohort. Results: The clinical outcomes of both groups did not differ significantly. Median subjective shoulder value was 97.5% (70; 100) in the PSI group vs. 90% (0; 100) in the free-hand group; subjective aesthetic value was 86.4% (±10.7) vs. 75% (±18.7); aCS was 82.3 (±10.3) points vs. 74.9 (±26) points; and rCS was 86.7 (±11.3) points vs. 81.9 (±28.1) points. In the free-hand group, 2/11 patients had a postoperative neurological complication. In the PSI cohort, the 3D angle deviation was significantly smaller (PSI/planned vs. free-hand/contralateral: 10.8° (3.1; 23.8) vs. 17.4° (11.6; 42.4); P = .020)). There was also a trend toward a smaller 3D shift, which was not statistically significant (PSI/planned vs. free-hand/contralateral: 6 mm (3.4; 18.3) vs. 9.3 mm (5.1; 18.1); P = .342). There were no other significant differences. A bony union was achieved in all cases. Conclusion: Surgical treatment of nonunion and malunions of the clavicle was associated with very good clinical results and a 100% union rate. This study, albeit in a relatively small cohort with a follow-up of 4 years, could not document any clinically relevant advantage of 3D planning and personalized operative templating over conventional radiographic planning and free-hand surgical fixation performed by experienced surgeons.

Background: There is little consensus on the best treatment after failed conservative management of recurrent posterior shoulder instability. The purpose of this study was to analyze our clinical and radiological mid-term to long-term results of an open, posterior bone block procedure for the treatment of recurrent posterior shoulder instability. Methods: From 1999 to 2015, 14 patients were included in the study and available for clinical and radiographic follow-up (FU). FU included a standardized physical examination, assessment of the Constant-Murley-Score, subjective shoulder value, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, and Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index. Conventional radiographs and a computed tomography (CT)–scan were performed preoperatively and at latest FU. Glenohumeral arthropathy was classified as per Samilson and Prieto. The CT scans were used to evaluate the structure of the graft (resorption, union), graft positioning, glenoid version, centering of the humeral head, and glenoid erosion and morphology. Results: The median age at the time of surgery was 26 years (range 16-41 years) and the median FU period was 9 years (range 4-20 years). The rate of reported dynamic postoperative subluxation and instability was 46% (n = 6) and the rate of dynamic posterior instability during clinical testing at FU was 31% (n = 4). The tested instability rate in the traumatic group was 14% (n = 1) compared to the atraumatic group with 50% (n = 3) during clinical FU. The mean Constant-Murley-Score increased from preoperatively (77 ± 11 points) to postoperatively (83 ± 14 points, P = .158). The last FU showed an American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score of 85 ± 12; the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index score was 715 ± 475 points. The mean subjective shoulder value increased from 58% ± 19 preoperatively to 73% ± 17 at final FU (P = .005). Degenerative changes increased by at least one grade in 67% of the patients. Mean preoperative glenoid retroversion (CT) was 7.5° ± 6°. The position of the graft was optimal in 86% (n = 12). In 62% of the cases, a major resorption of the graft (Zhu grade II) was observed. Conclusion: The rate of tested recurrent instability at last FU was as high as 31% (n = 4, atraumatic [n = 3] vs. traumatic [n = 1]) after a median FU of 9 years. Given the moderate improvement of clinical outcome scores, shoulder stability and the increase of degenerative joint changes by at least one grade (Samilson/Prieto) in 67% of patients, a posterior bone block procedure is not a uniformly satisfying treatment option for recurrent posterior shoulder subluxation, especially in cases of atraumatic posterior instability.