McLaughlin, Richard J.

Purpose To analyze the available literature pertaining to the indications, outcomes, and complications of both microfracture (MFX) and simple debridement for capitellar osteochondritis dissecans (OCD). Methods A comprehensive literature review was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analyses (PRISMA) criteria. Studies were included if they evaluated OCD of the capitellum that underwent either arthroscopic debridement (AD) or MFX. The risk of bias was assessed using the Methodological Index for Non‐randomized Studies (MINORS) scale. Patient demographic characteristics, imaging findings, return‐to‐sport rates, patient‐reported outcomes, range of motion (ROM), complications, failures, and reoperations were recorded. Results Eleven studies with 327 patients (332 elbows) met the inclusion criteria. Methodological Index for Non‐randomized Studies (MINORS) scores ranged from 63% to 75% and showed considerable heterogeneity. Both AD and MFX showed improvement in patient outcome scores, ROM, and return to play, although the data precluded relative conclusions. Improvement in motion after MFX ranged from 4.9° to 5° of flexion, 5° to 22.6° of extension, 1° to 2° of pronation, and 0.5° to 2° of supination, whereas after AD, it ranged from –4° to 6° of flexion and –0.4° to 14° of extension, with prono‐supination noted in only 1 study. The rate of return to play at a similar level of preinjury athletic competition ranged from 55% to 75% after MFX and from 40% to 100% after AD. Lesion location was discussed in only 1 study. Postoperative imaging trended toward early degenerative changes, most commonly of the radial head. Complications were only reported in 1 MFX study; in all cases, the complication was transient ulnar nerve neurapraxia. Reoperation rates ranged from 0% to 10%, and reoperation was most commonly performed to address radial head enlargement. Five studies reported no reoperations. Conclusions Both AD and MFX for capitellar OCD appear to yield excellent improvements in pain, ROM, patient outcome scores, and return to sport. Given that comparable mid‐term outcomes can be achieved with debridement alone, without the use of MFX, similarly to recent prospective studies in the knee, AD alone may be a reasonable approach to relatively small OCD defects. Level of Evidence Level IV, systematic review of studies, all Level IV evidence.

Abstract Although anterior shoulder instability is most commonly treated with arthroscopic fixation, open labral repair with capsular shift may be best for select patients and in cases of revision stabilization without significant bone loss. The technique described in this article uses the deltopectoral interval; it involves careful dissection of the subscapularis from the anterior capsule, repair of the Bankart lesion, and a lateral and superior capsular shift using all‐suture anchors in the humeral head. Advantages of this technique include meticulous control of anchor placement and the ability to provide additional stability via a lateral and superiorly directed capsular shift. This operation can be performed in a reliable, efficient, and reproducible manner. Technique Video video See video under supplementary data.

Background Preoperative planning software has been developed to measure glenoid version, glenoid inclination, and humeral head subluxation on computed tomography (CT) for shoulder arthroplasty. However, most studies analyzing the effect of glenoid positioning on outcome were done prior to the introduction of planning software. Thus, measurements obtained from the software can only be extrapolated to predict failure provided they are similar to classic measurements. The purpose of this study was to compare measurements obtained using classic manual measuring techniques and measurements generated from automated image analysis software. Methods Ninety-five two-dimensional computed tomography scans of shoulders with primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis were measured for version according to Friedman method, inclination according to Maurer method, and subluxation according to Walch method. DICOM files were loaded into an image analysis software (Blueprint, Wright Medical) and the output was compared with values obtained manually using a paired sample t-test. Results Average manual measurements included 13.8° version, 13.2° inclination, and 56.2% subluxation. Average image analysis software values included 17.4° version (3.5° difference, p < 0.0001), 9.2° inclination (3.9° difference, p < 0.001), and 74.2% for subluxation (18% difference, p < 0.0001). Conclusions Glenoid version and inclination values from the software and manual measurement on two-dimensional computed tomography were relatively similar, within approximately 4°. However, subluxation measurements differed by approximately 20%.

Background: Glenohumeral arthrodesis is associated with a high rate of complications. Although patients experience reasonable pain relief and shoulder stability, they experience marked limitations in their upper-extremity function. The purpose of this study was to examine the clinical outcomes of glenohumeral arthrodesis. Methods: Twenty-nine patients with 29 affected shoulders underwent primary glenohumeral arthrodesis between 1992 and 2009. Surgical indications included rotator cuff arthropathy and pseudoparalysis (n = 7), neurologic injuries (n = 12), chronic infection (n = 3), recurrent dislocations (n = 3), and proximal humeral or shoulder girdle tumors (n = 4). Surgical fixation techniques included plates and screws in 18 patients and screws only in 11 patients. Results: All patients were examined, with a mean follow-up of 12 years (range, 2 to 22 years). Twelve patients (41%) had postoperative complications, including 6 periprosthetic fractures, 7 nonunions, and 3 infections. Eleven patients (38%) required additional surgical procedures after arthrodesis, including revision internal fixation to achieve glenohumeral fusion after nonunions (n = 7), irrigation and debridement with antibiotic treatment for deep infections (n = 2), open reduction and internal fixation to treat fracture (n = 2), and implant removal to treat symptomatic patients (n = 3). Patients experienced reasonable overall pain relief. The mean postoperative scores were 35 points for the Subjective Shoulder Value, 58 points for the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) questionnaire, and 54 points for the Short Form-36. Eighty-seven percent of patients reported postoperative limitations. Patients with neurologic injuries had worse functional outcomes, and an arthrodesis position of ≥25° yielded better functional outcomes. Conclusions: Glenohumeral arthrodesis is associated with a high rate of patients with complications (41%). Although patients experience reasonable pain relief and shoulder stability, they experience marked limitations in their upper-extremity function. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level IV . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Background: One complication of anteroinferior glenohumeral shoulder dislocation is a critical bone defect that requires surgical repair to prevent recurrent instability. However, controversy exists regarding the surgical management because both open and arthroscopic surgeries have respective advantages and disadvantages. Moreover, it is difficult to determine the patient’s preferred treatment, as factors that influence treatment choice include recurrence rates, morbidity of the procedures, and patient preferences. Hypothesis: Patients who have a higher probability of recurrent instability after arthroscopic surgery will select open surgery whereas patients with a lower probability of recurrent instability after arthroscopic surgery will favor arthroscopy. Study Design: Economic and decision analysis; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: A decision tree was constructed to model each hypothetical outcome after open or arthroscopic surgery for glenohumeral instability in patients with bone defects. A literature review was performed to determine the probability of occurrence for each node while utility values for each outcome were obtained via patient-administered surveys given to 50 patients without prior history of shoulder injury or dislocation. Fold-back analysis was then performed to show the optimal treatment strategy. Finally, sensitivity analysis established the thresholds at which open treatment becomes the optimal treatment. Results: The ultimate expected value—the objective evaluation of all potential outcomes after choosing either open or arthroscopic surgery—was found to be greater for arthroscopic surgery than for open surgery (87.17 vs 81.64), indicating it to be the preferred treatment. Results of sensitivity analysis indicated that open surgery becomes the preferred treatment when probability of recurrence after arthroscopic treatment is ≥23.8%, although varying the utility, defined as an aggregate patient preference for a particular outcome, has no effect on the model. When the rate of no complication after open surgery is 97.6%, open surgery becomes the patient’s preferred treatment. Conclusion: Arthroscopic surgery is an acceptable treatment if recurrent instability occurs consistently at ≤23.8%. This has important implications given the technical difficulty of successfully performing arthroscopic fixation to resolve recurrent anteroinferior glenohumeral dislocations associated with critical osseous defects. However, due to a lack of clinical outcomes studies, more research is needed to better predict the optimal operative treatment.