Andrew T. Assenmacher

Management of acute or late hematogenous infection after shoulder arthroplasty with irrigation, débridement, and component retention.

BACKGROUND Irrigation and débridement (I&D) with component retention is an appealing alternative to both patients and surgeons for the management of acute or late hematogenous deep periprosthetic shoulder infection (PSI). However, the success rate and results of I&D are poorly documented. This study reports the outcomes and complications of this treatment strategy for acute and delayed-onset acute hematogenous PSI. METHODS Between 1980 and 2010, 10 shoulders (9 patients) underwent I&D with component retention for the management on an acute or delayed-onset acute hematogenous PSI at a single institution. Outcome data, including pain, range of motion, need for chronic oral antibiotic suppression therapy, eradication of infection, and need for further surgery were retrospectively collected. RESULTS Deep infection recurred in 3 shoulders, which were eventually treated with resection arthroplasty. Of the remaining 6 patients (7 shoulders), 5 were prescribed chronic antibiotic suppression. At the most recent follow-up, pain was graded as none in 3 shoulders, mild in 1, moderate with activity in 3, moderate in 2, and severe in 1. Among shoulders with retained components, forward elevation was greater than 110° in 6 (median, 140°; range, 30°-160°), and external rotation was greater than 40° in all shoulders (median, 50°; range, 40°-90°). CONCLUSION I&D allowed component retention in 70% of shoulders presenting with an acute or delayed-onset acute hematogenous infection. Most patients were prescribed chronic antibiotic suppression, and reasonable motion was maintained.

Distal biceps tendon injuries

Distal biceps tendon (DBT) conditions comprise a spectrum of disorders including bicipitoradial bursitis, partial tears, acute and chronic complete tears. In low-demand patients with complete DBT tears, non-operative treatment may be entertained provided the patient understands the potential for residual weakness, particularly in forearm supination. Most acute tears are best treated by primary repair using either single-incision or double-incision techniques with good clinical outcomes. Single-incision techniques may carry a higher risk of nerve-related complications, whereas double-incision techniques have historically been considered to carry a higher risk of heterotopic ossification, particularly if the ulna is exposed. Various fixation techniques, including bone tunnels, cortical buttons, suture anchors, interference screws or a combination seem to provide different fixation strength but similar clinical outcomes. Some chronic tears may be repaired primarily, provided tendon tissue can be identified; alternatively, autograft or allograft reconstruction can be considered, and good outcomes have been reported with both techniques. Cite this article: Alentorn-Geli E, Assenmacher AT, Sanchez-Sotelo J. Distal biceps tendon injuries: a clinically relevant current concepts review. EFORT Open Rev 2016;1:316-324. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.1.000053.

Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty in Weight-Bearing Shoulders of Wheelchair-Dependent Patients: Outcomes and Complications at 2 to 5 years

Wheelchair‐dependent patients rely on their upper extremities for mobility and transfers. This entails the heavy use of upper extremities as weight‐bearing joints, leading to shoulder overuse with increased prevalence of rotator cuff–related disorders and ultimately to challenging cases for shoulder surgeons when a joint replacement is needed.

Plication of the posterior capsule for intraoperative posterior instability during anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty

BACKGROUND Restoration of soft tissue balance for intraoperative posterior instability during anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) is particularly difficult. The effectiveness of posterior capsular plication (PCP) in restoring soft tissue balance is largely unknown. The purpose of this study was to report the outcomes, complications, and reoperations of primary TSA in which a PCP was performed to correct excessive intraoperative posterior subluxation. METHODS Thirty-eight shoulders (37 patients) underwent PCP for intraoperative posterior instability during anatomic TSA. The mean (standard deviation) age was 68 (10) years, and the median (range) clinical and radiographic follow-up periods were 60 (10-154) and 48 (1.5-154) months, respectively. A retrospective chart review was conducted to obtain clinical and radiographic data. RESULTS TSA resulted in significant improvements in pain and range of motion. The mean (standard deviation) Simple Shoulder Test and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores were 9.4 (2.7) and 81.1 (19.8), respectively. PCP resulted in restoration of soft tissue balance in 27 shoulders (71%). The remaining 11 shoulders had evidence of posterior subluxation, including posterior dislocation in 2 shoulders. Revision surgery was performed in only 3 shoulders (7.9%), all for instability. However, there was a high rate of radiographic glenoid component loosening (12 shoulders, 32%). Overall results were excellent in 24 (63.2%), satisfactory in 10 (26.3%), and unsatisfactory in 4 (10.5%) shoulders. Recurrence of posterior subluxation was associated with worse motion and strength as well as with a higher rate of glenoid loosening. CONCLUSIONS PCP seems to correct excessive intraoperative posterior subluxation in approximately two-thirds of the shoulders undergoing anatomic TSA. However, posterior subluxation does recur in the remaining third, and the overall rate of radiographic glenoid loosening is of concern.

What Are the Complications, Survival, and Outcomes After Revision to Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty in Patients Older Than 80 Years?

BackgroundBy the time patients with a failed shoulder arthroplasty require revision surgery, a substantial number are older than 80 years. The risk of complications of revision arthroplasty in this elderly population is largely unknown and needs to be considered when contemplating whether these patients are too frail for revision surgery.Questions/purposes(1) What are the 90-day medical and surgical complications after revision to reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) in patients older than 80 years? (2) What are the 2- and 5-year survival rates after revision? (3) Was there an improvement in pain at rest or with activity, range of motion (ROM), and strength after revision surgery?MethodsBetween 2004 and 2013, 38 patients who were older than 80 years (84 ± 3 years) underwent revision surgery to a RSA. Of those, five were lost to followup before 2 years, and two had died within 2 years of revision surgery, leaving 31 for analysis of our survivorship, pain, ROM, and strength endpoints at a minimum of 2 years or until revision surgery had occurred (mean, 28 months; range, 1–77 months); all 38 patients were included for purposes of evaluating medical and surgical complications at 90 days. During the period in question, our general indication for using RSA included failure of previous shoulder arthroplasty because of instability, glenoid loosening with bone loss, or rotator cuff insufficiency. The indication for revision to RSA did not change during the study period. The index procedure (revision to RSA at the age of 80 years or older) was the first revision arthroplasty in 33 (87%) patients and the second in five (13%) patients. We tallied 90-day medical and surgical complications by performing a retrospective chart and institutional joint registry review. The cumulative incidence of implant loosening (implant migration or tilting, or complete radiolucent lines present) and revision surgery was calculated at 2 and 5 years using competing risk of death method. Pain levels at rest or with activity (rated in a 1 to 5 Likert-type scale) were collected through a retrospective chart review and values before and after surgery were compared.ResultsMedical complications occurred in three of 38 (8%) patients and surgical complications occurred in five of 38 (13%) patients. The 90-day mortality was 3% (one of 38 patients), and the total mortality was 26% (10 of 38 patients). The cumulative incidence of revision was 11% (95% CI, 0%–20%) at 2 years and 16% (95% CI, 1%–30%) at 5 years; the cumulative incidence of loosening was 8% (95% CI, 0%–20%) at 2 years and 16% (95% CI, 1%–30%) at 5 years. Pain at rest or with activity improved from pre- to postoperation (preoperative: median, 4 [range, 2–5]; postoperative: median, 1 [range, 1–4]; median difference: -2, 95% CI -3 to 0; p < 0.000). The active ROM improved during the preoperative compared with postoperative periods: mean ± SD forward flexion of 52° ± 40° to 109° ± 44°, respectively (mean difference: 56; 95% CI, 40–72; p < 0.000), and mean ± SD external rotation of 15° ± 22° to 31° ± 21°, respectively (mean difference: 16; 95% CI, 8–25; p < 0.000).ConclusionsAge should not be used as a reason to not consider revision surgery to RSA in patients older than 80 years. Further studies with a prospective design, larger sample size, investigating risk factors for complications or poor outcome, and incorporation of functional scores are required.Level of EvidenceLevel IV, therapeutic study.

Anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty with posterior capsular plication versus reverse shoulder arthroplasty in patients with biconcave glenoids: A matched cohort study:

Purpose: To compare the outcomes of total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) with posterior capsule plication (PCP) and reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) in patients with primary osteoarthritis, posterior subluxation, and bone loss (Walch B2). Patients and methods: All shoulders undergoing anatomic TSA with PCP were retrospectively identified (group 1, G1) and compared to shoulders undergoing RSA (group 2, G2) for Walch B2 osteoarthritis. There were 15 patients in G1 (mean (SD) age and follow-up of 70.5 (7.5) years and 42.8 (18.4) months, respectively) and 16 patients in G2 (mean (SD) age and follow-up of 72.6 (5.4) years and 35.1 (14.2) months, respectively). Results: Both groups had substantial improvements in pain and function. In G1, results were excellent in 80% and satisfactory in 20%, compared to 81% and 6% in G2, respectively (p = 0.2). The mean (SD) American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score was 91.2 (6.7) and 80.3 (14.3) in G1 and G2, respectively (p = 0.08). The mean Simple Shoulder Test score was 10.6 in G1 and 8.5 in G2 (p = 0.01). There were no reoperations in either group, but G1 had seven postoperative complications. Conclusions: The outcomes of TSA with PCP are comparable to RSA in patients with osteoarthritis and biconcave glenoids. However, TSA leads to more complications while RSA leads to lower functional outcomes.

Revision anatomic shoulder arthroplasty with posterior capsular plication for correction of posterior instability

Background: Revision of failed anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty or hemiarthroplasty is a challenging procedure. Restoring adequate soft tissue balance in the revision setting can be particularly problematic. When persistent posterior instability is encountered in the revision setting, options include changing component position or size, posterior capsular plication (PCP), or conversion to a reverse arthroplasty. The purpose of this study was to report the clinical and radiographic outcomes, complications, and reoperations of PCP performed in the setting of revision anatomic shoulder arthroplasty. Patients and Methods: Between 1975 and 2013, 15 patients (16 shoulders) had PCP during revision anatomic shoulder arthroplasty. Indications for revision arthroplasty included posterior instability in 15, glenoid loosening in 3, polyethylene wear in 2, and glenoid erosion in 1 shoulder. The mean (standard deviation (SD)) age was 60.1 (12.6) years, and the median (range) follow-up was 68 (2–228) months. A retrospective chart review was conducted to obtain all data. Results: At the last follow-up, nine shoulders (56%) had absence of posterior radiographic subluxation. Five (31%) cases underwent reoperation due to persistent posterior instability. Complications were observed in seven (44%) cases. Complete pain relief was achieved in four (25%) shoulders. The mean (SD) postoperative forward flexion, external rotation, and the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score were 110° (41°), 40° (29°), and 62.1 (21.9), respectively. Results were excellent in two (13%), satisfactory in seven (44%), and unsatisfactory in seven (44%) shoulders. Conclusions: PCP to correct posterior instability during revision anatomic shoulder arthroplasty had an unacceptably high failure rate. In these circumstances, consideration should instead be given to conversion to a reverse shoulder arthroplasty.

Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty in Patients With Amputation or Paralysis of the Contralateral Upper Extremity (One-Arm Patients)

Theoretically, patients with only one functional arm secondary to contralateral amputation or paralysis will subject their only functional upper extremity to increased loads. This could become an issue after reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA). However, there are no reported data on the implant survival or function for patients with a nonfunctional contralateral upper extremity.