Smith, Adam

Purpose There has been a significant increase in surgeon as well as patient interest in arthroscopic treatment of shoulder pathology. We hypothesize that patients have a strong preference for arthroscopic shoulder surgery. Currently, there are no data in the literature reporting on how people perceive open versus arthroscopic shoulder surgery. Methods Prospectively, a total of 202 patients were administered a questionnaire at the offices of 2 fellowship‐trained shoulder surgeons, 1 located at a tertiary referral center (center A) and 1 in private practice (center B). The questionnaire asked a series of questions about specific factors when choosing an orthopaedic surgeon and the preference for arthroscopic or open surgery. In addition, 7 short‐term and long‐term outcomes were listed, and the patient was asked to choose whether open or arthroscopic surgery would provide the best outcome or whether he or she felt that there was no difference. Results Among patients at center A, 88% would prefer arthroscopy if they were to have shoulder surgery, as would 96% of patients at center B. Among patients at center A, 14% would avoid shoulder surgery if the only option was open surgery, as would 25% at center B. The reputation of the surgeon and institution were the primary factors in choosing a surgeon. Recommendation of a former patient and years of surgeon experience were less important factors for patient selection of a shoulder surgeon. Conclusions The study shows that the vast majority of patients perceive multiple advantages of arthroscopic shoulder surgery despite a lack of published data to support many of these assumptions, particularly with regard to expected functional outcome of arthroscopic versus open shoulder surgery. Clinical Relevance Shoulder surgeons should be aware of these perceptions when discussing treatment options with patients. A continued effort should be made to emphasize known scientific data when considering the relative risks and benefits of arthroscopic and open shoulder surgery.

Purpose Currently, there is little information available concerning the results of shoulder synovectomy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Furthermore, it remains difficult to assess the success of shoulder synovectomy because of a high association of rotator cuff tears in rheumatoid patients. We hypothesized that synovectomy in patients with a functionally intact rotator cuff would provide durable pain relief. Type of Study Case series. Methods Sixteen shoulders in 13 patients with rheumatoid arthritis were treated with arthroscopic shoulder synovectomy from 1988 to 2002 with a mean follow‐up of 5.5 years. Patients with full‐thickness rotator cuff tears or partial tears that required repair were excluded. Two of the 13 patients had been diagnosed with juvenile rheumatoid arthritis and 11 had adult‐onset disease. The medical records of the patients were reviewed and patients were assessed clinically and by questionnaire to assess pain, satisfaction, range of motion, radiographic outcomes, and occurrence of complications. Results There was an improvement in pain at long‐term follow‐up in 13 of 16 patients ( P < .001). Active shoulder elevation improved from a median of 145° to 160° but was not significant ( P = .14). External rotation improved significantly ( P = .01) from a median of 45° (range, 0° to 90°) to 60° (range, 0° to 100°). According to the Neer rating system, there were 5 excellent, 8 satisfactory, and 3 unsatisfactory results. Seven of 8 shoulders followed‐up radiographically for more than 1 year showed radiographic progression of disease. All 3 patients reporting pain that was no better or worse than before surgery had radiographic arthrosis at last follow‐up with advancing periarticular erosions and reduction of glenoid articular space. Conclusions Arthroscopic synovectomy of the shoulder in patients with rheumatoid arthritis with an intact rotator cuff offers a reliable decrease in pain with less predictable improvements in range of motion. Limitations in predicting final results based on preoperative radiographs should be discussed with patients; those with more advanced radiographic changes may not benefit from the procedure. Level of Evidence Level IV, therapeutic study, case series, no control group.

Background The diagnosis of a painful partial tear of the medial collateral ligament in overhead-throwing athletes is challenging, even for experienced elbow surgeons and despite the use of sophisticated imaging techniques. Hypothesis The “moving valgus stress test” is an accurate physical examination technique for diagnosis of medial collateral ligament attenuation in the elbow. Study Design Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 2. Methods Twenty-one patients underwent surgical intervention for medial elbow pain due to medial collateral ligament insufficiency or other abnormality of chronic valgus overload, and they were assessed preoperatively with an examination called the moving valgus stress test. To perform the moving valgus stress test, the examiner applies and maintains a constant moderate valgus torque to the fully flexed elbow and then quickly extends the elbow. The test is positive if the medial elbow pain is reproduced at the medial collateral ligament and is at maximum between 120 ° and 70 °. Results The moving valgus stress test was highly sensitive (100%, 17 of 17 patients) and specific (75%, 3 of 4 patients) when compared to assessment of the medial collateral ligament by surgical exploration or arthroscopic valgus stress testing. The mean shear range (ie, the arc within which pain was produced with the moving valgus stress test) was 120 ° to 70 °. The mean angle at which pain was at a maximum was 90 ° of elbow flexion. Conclusions The moving valgus stress test is an accurate physical examination technique that, when performed and interpreted correctly, is highly sensitive for medial elbow pain arising from the medial collateral ligament.

Six cases of greater arc injury, defined as a perilunate dislocation of the carpus with a fracture of at least both the scaphoid and the capitate, were treated by open reposition and both internal and external fixation. Revascularisation of the capitate by implantation of the first dorsal intermetacarpal artery was attempted in three cases. At a mean follow-up of six years and four months, all patients complained of residual pain in the wrist. Carpal mobility and grip strength were reduced, and all patients showed mild or moderate arthritic changes. Progressive cartilage damage over the proximal pole of the capitate seems to be a determining factor in the outcome. Open reposition and both internal and external fixation are recommended in order to possibly diminish the incidence of arthritis and minimise secondary carpal instability.