Wagner, Eric R

Background: Allograft-prosthetic composite (APC) reconstruction of the humerus represents an appealing surgical technique when implantation of a reverse prosthesis is considered in the setting of substantial proximal humeral bone loss 1–4 . Humeral APCs have been successfully performed in the past with a non-reverse shoulder prosthesis 4,5 . Reconstruction of the proximal part of the humerus with an allograft provides adequate support and fixation for the humeral component, allows restoration of length and lateral offset, and provides an opportunity for soft-tissue reattachment when needed. On the basis of the available peer-reviewed data, healing at the allograft-host junction is reliable, and complication rates, including instability, are relatively low 3,6 . Description: Once the glenoid reverse component has been implanted, a proximal humeral allograft is prepared to receive the humeral component of a reverse arthroplasty. The allograft is procured by our institutional bone and tissue bank, purchased from a number of vendors. The graft is selected after review of the description and radiographs provided by the vendor. The priority is to obtain a graft with sufficient length and soft tissues attached. If possible, the graft selected should have a diameter close to the diameter of the humerus of the recipient. The desired allograft length is selected on the basis of preoperative planning and intraoperative measurements, and the distal portion of the allograft is resected accordingly. Depending on the length of the defect, host bone quality, and surgeon preferences, the humeral component may or may not bypass the host-graft junction. The stem bypasses the host-graft junction for shorter APCs, as well as when the bone quality of the native humerus is compromised. Cemented fixation into the graft is universally used. Compression plating is used for graft-to-host fixation, supplemented by implantation of the stem across the junction in selected cases. Care is taken during the freehand cut to obtain optimal contact and compression. Once the ideal humeral bearing thickness has been selected, the polyethylene bearing is implanted and the joint relocated. If the posterior cuff can be repaired to cuff allograft, sutures are placed prior to relocation and are tied after relocation. Other musculotendinous units, such as the deltoid or pectoralis major, are repaired to the allograft if needed. Alternatives: Implantation of a reverse prosthesis with a proximal humeral metal body (a so-called tumor prosthesis) is the main alternative to proximal humeral APC reconstruction. In patients with shorter defects, adequate soft-tissue tension may be obtained by implanting a glenosphere with a large inferior eccentricity and cementing the humeral component in a more proximal position than is usually performed. Alternatively, when implantation of the glenoid component of a reverse prosthesis is not possible, a hemiarthroplasty-APC construct may be performed 1,4,5,7–10 , adding a synthetic sleeve such as an aortic Dacron graft to enhance soft-tissue stability if needed. Rationale: When reverse arthroplasty is performed in the setting of substantial humeral bone loss, the humeral component may be poorly supported and at risk for loosening. In addition, the absence of proximal humeral bone stock may lead to shortening and/or loss of lateral offset. Finally, the posterosuperior cuff, subscapularis, deltoid, and pectoralis tendons may remain detached. The potential consequences of humeral bone loss in the setting of reverse arthroplasty include humeral loosening, dislocation, and poor active motion (particularly poor active elevation). Allograft reconstruction of the proximal part of the humerus provides an opportunity for better support of the component, restoration of humeral length and lateral offset, and attachment sites for the musculotendinous structures around the shoulder, if needed.

Background: Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) performed in the setting of massive proximal humeral bone loss often requires special reconstructive techniques. Restoration of the proximal part of the humerus with an allograft provides a number of theoretical benefits, including implant support, restoration of humeral length, deltoid tensioning, and an opportunity to repair the posterior aspect of the cuff to improve strength in external rotation and repair of the subscapularis to improve stability. However, reverse allograft-prosthesis composites (APCs) are costly, are technically demanding to use, and can be compromised by progressive allograft resorption. Methods: Between 2005 and 2012, the lead author used an APC reconstruction in 8 primary and 18 revision RTSAs (26 patients; mean age, 62 years; mean body mass index, 27.9 kg/m 2 ). The indications for the primary RTSAs included severe proximal humeral bone loss after trauma (n = 5) and tumor resection (n = 3). The indications in the revision setting were failed hemiarthroplasty (n = 11), anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (n = 4), and reverse arthroplasty (n = 3). The most common reason for revision was instability (n = 10). A compression plate was used for graft-to-host fixation in all shoulders. Shoulders were assessed for pain, motion, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, Simple Shoulder Test (SST) score, Neer score, revision or reoperation, radiographic evidence of graft union or resorption, and implant fixation. The mean duration of follow-up was 4 years (range, 2 to 10 years). Results: RTSA using an APC construct resulted in substantial improvements in pain scores (p < 0.0001), elevation (p < 0.0001), and external rotation (p = 0.004). With the numbers available, there were no significant differences in clinical outcomes between primary and revision cases. No patients required revision surgery for nonunion at the host-allograft junction. The mean time to union was 7 months, with 1 patient requiring bone-grafting for delayed union. Other complications included dislocation, deep infection, graft fracture, and periprosthetic fracture distal to the previous APC construct in 1 patient each. The 2 and 5-year revision-free survival rate was 96%. Conclusions: Reconstruction of proximal humeral bone loss with an APC at the time of primary or revision RTSA is safe and effective, with acceptable functional outcomes and complication rates. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level IV . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Background: Nonvascularized bone grafting (NVBG) and vascularized bone grafts (VBGs) have been used to treat scaphoid nonunions. A comparison of a single institution’ s experience using structural iliac crest bone graft (ICBG), 1,2-intercompartmental supraretinacular artery (1,2-ICSRA), and medial femoral condyle (MFC) grafts to treat scaphoid nonunions was undertaken. Methods: Thirty-one patients underwent ICBG, 33 patients underwent 1,2-ICSRA, and 45 patients underwent MFC grafting. Mean time to follow-up was 16 months (range, 2-153). Twenty-three percent used tobacco products. Mean age was 24 years (range, 11-66), with 86% male patients. Outcomes included union rate, time to healing, range of motion, complications, and reoperations. Results: Union rates and mean time to union were 71% and 19 weeks for the ICBG group, 79% and 26 weeks for the 1,2-ICSRA group, and 89% and 16 weeks for the MFC group, respectively. Failure of union was associated with tobacco use but not with age, gender, time from injury to surgery, or type of fixation. There was no significant difference between the groups regarding range of motion or strength. Conclusions: These findings demonstrate the need for careful patient selection. In patients with the most complicated scaphoid nonunions (avascular necrosis, carpal collapse, and previous surgeries), the MFC group had the highest union rate and fastest time to union. Patients with risk factors for failure should be counseled on the outcomes and possible need for salvage fusion surgery.

The purpose was to determine if smartphone photography is a reliable tool in measuring wrist movement. Smartphones were used to take digital photos of both wrists in 32 normal participants (64 wrists) at extremes of wrist motion. The smartphone measurements were compared with clinical goniometry measurements. There was a very high correlation between the clinical goniometry and smartphone measurements, as the concordance coefficients were high for radial deviation, ulnar deviation, wrist extension and wrist flexion. The Pearson coefficients also demonstrated the high precision of the smartphone measurements. The Bland–Altman plots demonstrated 29–31 of 32 smartphone measurements were within the 95% confidence interval of the clinical measurements for all positions of the wrists. There was high reliability between the photography taken by the volunteer and researcher, as well as high inter-observer reliability. Smartphone digital photography is a reliable and accurate tool for measuring wrist range of motion. Level of evidence: II

Background: Following resection of malignant tumors of the spine and pelvis, reconstructive surgeons often face large structural defects. Unlike reconstruction in the extremities, wherein a free vascularized fibular graft (FVFG) is a highly utilized option for segmental osseous reconstruction, there are limited data on the use of an FVFG in the spine and pelvis. The aim of this study was to review our institution’s experience with reconstruction with use of an FVFG following oncological resection in the spine and pelvis. Methods: We reviewed 24 cases involving the use of an FVFG in reconstruction of segmental osseous defects of the spine and pelvis following oncological resection from 2000 to 2015. The cohort consisted of 12 male and 12 female patients with a mean age of 37 years and a mean follow-up of 5 years. Fifty-four percent of the reconstructions were spinopelvic or sacropelvic. Results: The overall 2, 5, and 10-year rate of survival was 76%, 55%, and 37%, respectively. With regard to disease-free survival, the overall 2, 5, and 10-year rate was 81%, 72%, and 48%. The overall rate of union was 86%, with a mean time to union of 7 months. Complications were common, with 83% of the patients sustaining at least 1 postoperative complication. Following the procedure, the mean Musculoskeletal Tumor Society rating was 53%. Conclusions: An FVFG provides a durable means of reconstruction of osseous defects in the spine and pelvis. Although patient function was acceptable following these large reconstructions, the rate of postoperative complications was high. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level IV . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Background: Although obesity is associated with increased complication rates after lower-extremity arthroplasty, there is a relative paucity of studies examining the effect of body mass index (BMI) on shoulder arthroplasty. The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the effect of BMI on implant survival and the rate of complications after shoulder arthroplasty. Methods: Using an institutional total joint registry, 4,567 consecutive shoulder arthroplasty cases from 1970 to 2013 were studied. The mean BMI was 29.7 kg/m 2 (range, 14 to 66 kg/m 2 ), with 1,622 patients (36%) with a BMI of 30 to 40 kg/m 2 and 297 patients (7%) with a BMI of >40 kg/m 2 . There were 2,493 female patients (55%). BMI was dichotomized after examination of the smoothing spline curve. The associations of factors and complications were assessed using Cox proportional hazard regression analysis. Results: Increasing BMI was associated with an increased risk of a revision surgical procedure, reoperation, revision for mechanical failure, and superficial infection, and it was negatively associated with risk of a periprosthetic fracture. The risk of a revision surgical procedure increased in a linear fashion with increasing BMI (hazard ratio [HR], 1.05, or a 5% increased risk per 1 unit of BMI; p = 0.03). Increased BMI was also associated with an increased risk of revision for mechanical failure (HR, 1.05; p = 0.004). In a multivariate model, the association of BMI and risk of a revision for any reason, revision for mechanical failure, and reoperation maintained significance (p ≤ 0.02). The most marked association between increasing BMI and any complication in shoulder arthroplasty was its association with superficial wound infection (HR, 1.09; p = 0.03). Conclusions: Increasing BMI is strongly associated with increased rates of revision surgical procedures and postoperative complications after shoulder arthroplasty. It is important to consider these findings when counseling patients, estimating risks, and estimating complication risks in policy decisions. Level of Evidence: Prognostic Level IV . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Background The purpose of the present study was to determine the cost of two-stage reimplantation for the treatment of deep infection after total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) and compare this with primary and aseptic revision TEA. Methods Three hundred and seventy-one primary TEA and 286 revision TEAs (including 47 elbows requiring two-stage reimplantation) were performed. Total direct medical costs during each hospitalization were obtained from our institutional research database and compared for three groups: primary TEA, revision for nonseptic reasons and two-stage reimplantation for deep infection. Results The mean cost of an uncomplicated primary TEA and aseptic revision TEA was $18,464 and $18,796, respectively. The mean overall cost associated with two-stage reimplantation increased to $34,286. Two-stage reimplantation increased both Part A (hospital costs) and Part B (professional costs). The mean Part A cost for septic revision TEA was $29,102 versus $15,844 for primary TEA. The mean Part B cost for septic revision TEA was $5,184 versus $2,621 for primary TEA. Conclusions Two-stage reimplantation for treatment of an infected TEA costs 186% the hospital cost of a primary uncomplicated or aseptic revision TEA. The overall cost to society is even greater if we take into account the cost of antibiotic therapy in between stages and lost days from work.

Background: Giant cell tumor (GCT) of bone is a benign, though locally aggressive tumor, classically described as an eccentric lytic lesion, often with cortical expansion and destruction. It typically involves the metaphysis or epiphysis of long bones in skeletally mature patients, with a slight female predominance. The incidence in the small bones of the hand has been reported to be 2% to 5%. Methods: Treatment options have evolved in recent years, and currently include intralesional curettage with or without adjuvant therapy, wide resection, and occasionally amputation. Results: In this report, we present a long-term follow-up (10 years) of a patient with GCT involving a metacarpal, who was initially reconstructed with a metacarpal head allograft, which was eventually revised to a metacarpophalangeal (MCP) total joint arthroplasty. Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the only report of pyrocarbon being used for tumor reconstruction and the only report of late MCP allograft salvage.