Massimini, Daniel F.

Purpose The purpose was to compare open and arthroscopic acromioclavicular joint (ACJ) resection. Methods We retrospectively reviewed 103 patients (105 shoulders) who underwent ACJ resection between 2000 and 2005. There were 56 women and 47 men with a mean age of 48 years. The mean duration of follow‐up was 51 months (range, 15 to 91 months). Arthroscopic ACJ resection by use of a direct approach was performed in 81 shoulders (group A), and open ACJ resection was performed in 24 shoulders (group B). Results were graded according to pain relief both subjectively and objectively with cross‐body adduction testing and direct palpation of the ACJ, subjective shoulder value, Constant score, and improved function. Results The Constant scores increased from 50 (range, 34 to 65) to 89 (range, 39 to 100) in group A ( P < .0001) and from 46 (range, 22 to 63) to 87 (range, 43 to 100) in group B ( P < .0001). There was no statistical difference in the postoperative normalized Constant score between group A and group B ( P = .47). Pain with cross‐body adduction testing and palpation of the ACJ improved in 76 shoulders (94%) in group A and 22 shoulders (92%) in group B. No patients had signs or symptoms of ACJ anteroposterior instability. Revision ACJ resection was performed in 5 patients (5 shoulders [6.2%]) in group A and 1 shoulder (4.2%) in group B ( P = .37). The radiographs of the patients who underwent revision showed that 3 patients (3.7%) from group A had regrowth of the distal clavicle; in addition, 2 patients (2.5%) from group A and 1 patient (4.3%) from group B had incomplete distal clavicle excision. Conclusions This study did not show a significant difference in the outcome between arthroscopic and open ACJ resection. Incomplete excision and regrowth of the distal clavicle are the most common causes of revision. Although only the arthroscopic group showed a small percentage of patients (3.7%) with regrowth of the distal clavicle, the number is too small to assume that this complication is the result of the arthroscopic technique only. Level of Evidence Level IV, therapeutic case series.

Purpose The purpose of this study was to evaluate the results of arthroscopic capsulolabral repair for traumatic anterior shoulder instability and to compare the outcome in patients who have Bankart lesions versus those with anterior labroligamentous periosteal sleeve avulsion (ALPSA) lesions. Methods This study included 99 patients (93 shoulders), 72 male and 17 female, with a mean age of 32 years, who underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair for traumatic, recurrent anterior shoulder instability, by use of suture anchors. In 67 shoulders (72%) a discrete Bankart lesion was repaired, and in 26 shoulders (28%) an ALPSA lesion was repaired. The 2 groups were analyzed with regard to the number of preoperative dislocations and number of postoperative recurrences. Results At a mean follow‐up of 47 months (range, 24 to 98 months), recurrence of instability was documented in 10 shoulders (10.7%). Of the shoulders, 5 had Bankart lesions (7.4%) and 5 had ALPSA lesions (19.2%) ( P = .0501). The mean number of dislocations or subluxations before the index surgery was significantly higher in the ALPSA group (mean, 12.3 [range, 2 to 57]) than in the Bankart group (mean, 4.9 [range, 2 to 24]) ( P < .05). However, there were no significant differences in the number of anchors used, incidence of minor glenoid erosion, or incidence of bony Bankart lesions between the groups ( P > .05 for all). Conclusions Patients with ALPSA lesions present with a higher number of recurrent dislocations than those with discrete Bankart lesions. In addition, the failure rate after arthroscopic capsulolabral repair is higher in the ALPSA group than in the Bankart group. Level of Evidence Level IV, therapeutic case series.

Transfer of pectoralis major has evolved as the most favoured option for the management of the difficult problem of irreparable tears of subscapularis. We describe our experience with this technique in 30 patients divided into three groups. Group I comprised 11 patients with a failed procedure for instability of the shoulder, group II included eight with a failed shoulder replacement and group III, 11 with a massive tear of the rotator cuff. All underwent transfer of the sternal head of pectoralis major to restore the function of subscapularis. At the latest follow-up pain had improved in seven of the 11 patients in groups I and III, but in only one of eight in group II. The subjective shoulder score improved in seven patients in group I, in one in group II and in six in group III. The mean Constant score improved from 40.9 points (28 to 50) in group I, 32.9 (17 to 47) in group II and 28.7 (20 to 42) in group III pre-operatively to 60.8 (28 to 89), 41.9 (24 to 73) and 52.3 (24 to 78), respectively. Failure of the tendon transfer was highest in group II and was associated with pre-operative anterior subluxation of the humeral head. We conclude that in patients with irreparable rupture of subscapularis after shoulder replacement there is a high risk of failure of transfer of p?ctoralis major, particularly if there is pre-operative anterior subluxation of the humeral head.