Sanchez-Sotelo, Joaquin

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.

Abstract As our knowledge and technology advance, the indications for elbow arthroscopy continue to grow rapidly. During this expansion, a number of new portals have been described and reported using variable nomenclature and location descriptions. Accordingly, a comprehensive review of these portals is warranted. Given the concern for potential iatrogenic injury to surrounding neurovascular structures, a discussion of these critical nerves and vessels is also timely. In this work, we review pertinent surface anatomy; portal nomenclature, locations, and utility; and review distances to the nearest structures at risk. Technique Video video See video under supplementary data.

Abstract The field of elbow arthroscopy has evolved significantly since the procedure was first introduced more than 30 years ago. As our knowledge and understanding grows, numerous technical modifications have been made to improve the safety and efficacy of elbow arthroscopy. One of the most significant modifications is the change from the supine hanging position to the supine‐suspended position with the use of a mechanical arm holder. Currently, the supine‐suspended and lateral decubitus positions are the 2 most commonly used techniques. In this work, we discuss the history of the supine position, provide key points for proper patient positioning, and detail the steps of diagnostic elbow arthroscopy. It is our hope that this work will serve as an up‐to‐date review and summary of the most critical components of this procedure for emerging elbow arthroscopists. Technique Video video See video under supplementary data.

Abstract In recent years, arthroscopy has gained popularity as a preferred treatment of a multitude of pathologies affecting the elbow. Since its initial description in 1985, many modifications have been made as our knowledge and technology have advanced. Currently, the majority of arthroscopic procedures are performed in either the lateral decubitus or supine suspended position. In this work, we discuss the history, patient positioning, and key steps for performing elbow arthroscopy in the lateral decubitus position. In addition to key steps, a number of strengths and limitations of this set up are discussed in detail. When properly executed, elbow arthroscopy can be performed in a safe and efficient manner with minimal risk to patients. Technique Video video See video under supplementary data.

Background: Elbow arthroplasty is the treatment of choice for end-stage rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The purpose of this study was to determine the long-term outcome of a linked semiconstrained elbow arthroplasty implant design in patients with RA. Methods: Between 1982 and 2006, 461 primary total elbow arthroplasties using the Coonrad-Morrey prosthesis were performed in 387 patients with RA. Fifty-five of the arthroplasties were performed to treat concurrent traumatic or posttraumatic conditions. There were 305 women (365 elbows, 79%) and 82 men (96 elbows, 21%). Ten patients (10 elbows) were lost to follow-up, 9 patients (10 elbows) died, and 6 patients (6 elbows) underwent revision surgery within the first 2 years. For the 435 elbows (362 patients, 94%) with a minimum of 2 years of follow-up, the median follow-up was 10 years (range, 2 to 30 years). Results: At the most recent follow-up, 49 (11%) of the elbows had undergone component revision or removal (deep infection, 10 elbows; and mechanical failure, 39 elbows). Eight additional elbows were considered to have radiographic evidence of loosening. For surviving implants followed for a minimum of 2 years, the median Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS) was 90 points. Bushing wear was identified in 71 (23%) of the surviving elbows with a minimum of 2 years of radiographic follow-up; however, only 2% of the elbows had been revised for isolated bushing wear. The rate of survivorship free of implant revision or removal for any reason was 92% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 88% to 94%) at 10 years, 83% (95% CI = 77% to 88%) at 15 years, and 68% (95% CI = 56% to 78%) at 20 years. The survivorship at 20 years was 88% (95% CI = 83% to 92%) with revision due to aseptic loosening as the end point and 89% (95% CI = 77% to 95%) with isolated bushing exchange as the end point. Risk factors for implant revision for any cause included male sex, a history of concomitant traumatic pathology, and implantation of an ulnar component with a polymethylmethacrylate surface finish. Conclusions: Elbow arthroplasty using a cemented linked semiconstrained elbow arthroplasty provides satisfactory clinical results in the treatment of RA with a reasonable rate of survivorship free of mechanical failure at 20 years. Although bushing wear was identified on radiographs in approximately one-fourth of the patients, revision for isolated bushing wear was uncommon. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level IV . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Background: This study investigated whether axillary nerve (AN) distance to the inferior border of the humeral head and inferior glenoid would change while placing the glenohumeral joint in different degrees of external rotation and abduction. Methods: A standard deltopectoral approach was performed on 10 fresh-frozen cadaveric specimens. The distance between AN and the inferior border of the humeral head and inferior glenoid while placing the shoulder in 0°, 45°, and 90° of external rotation or abduction was measured. Continuous variables for changes in AN position were compared with paired 2-tailed Student t test. Results: The mean distance between the AN and the humeral head with the shoulder in 0°, 45°, and 90° of external rotation and 0° of abduction was 13.77 mm (SD 4.31), 13.99 mm (SD 4.12), and 16.28 mm (SD 5.40), respectively. The mean distance between the AN and glenoid with the shoulder in 0°, 45°, and 90° of external rotation was 16.33 mm (SD 3.60), 15.60 mm (SD 4.19), and 16.43 (SD 5.35), respectively. The mean distance between the AN and the humeral head with the shoulder in 0°, 45°, and 90° of abduction and 0° of external rotation was 13.76 mm (SD 4.31), 10.68 mm (SD 4.19), and 3.81 mm (SD 3.08), respectively. The mean distance between the AN and glenoid with the shoulder in 0°, 45°, and 90° of abduction was 16.33 mm (SD 3.60), 17.66 mm (SD 5.80), and 12.44 mm (SD 5.57), respectively. Conclusions: The AN position relative to the inferior aspect of the glenohumeral joint does not significantly change despite position of external rotation. Increasing shoulder abduction over 45° decreases the distance from the glenohumeral joint to the AN and should be avoided.

Abstract 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.

Abstract The reported rate of complications of reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) seems to be higher than the complication rate of anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty. The reported overall complication rate of primary RSA is approximately 15%; when RSA is used in the revision setting, the complication rate may approach 40%. The most common complications of RSA include instability, infection, notching, loosening, nerve injury, acromial and scapular spine fractures, intra-operative fractures and component disengagement. Careful attention to implant design and surgical technique, including implantation of components in the correct version and height, selection of the best glenosphere-humeral bearing match, avoidance of impingement, and adequate management of the soft tissues will hopefully translate in a decreasing number of complications in the future. Cite this article: Barco R, Savvidou OD, Sperling JW, Sanchez-Sotelo J, Cofield RH. Complications in reverse shoulder arthroplasty. EFORT Open Rev 2016;1:72-80. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.1.160003.