Citations

Abstract Background With a reported incidence of up to 12%, periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a frequent complication of total elbow arthroplasty (TEA). Its microbiologic diagnosis is usually based on periprosthetic tissue culture (hereafter referred to as tissue culture), despite the poor sensitivity of this technique. Although implant sonication cultures have been shown to be superior to tissue cultures for hip and knee PJI diagnosis, only a single small study (including fewer than 10 infected implants) has assessed sonication of elbow arthroplasties. Methods We retrospectively analysed 116 sonicate fluid cultures from patients who underwent revision of a TEA at our Institution between 2007 and 2019, comparing results to tissue cultures. Nine elbows who had fewer than 2 tissue samples obtained during surgery were excluded. Using the IDSA guidelines to define PJI, there were 46 infected cases and 61 aseptic failures. We reviewed clinical characteristics and calculated the sensitivity and specificity of periprosthetic tissue culture compared to culture of samples obtained by implant sonication. In addition, we compared the sensitivity of tissue culture to the combination of tissue and sonicate fluid culture. Results A total of 107 elbows were included. Median ages in the aseptic failure and PJI groups were 60 and 67 years, respectively. Gender distribution was similar for both groups (PJI group 62% females; aseptic group 65% females). The most common pathogens were coagulase negative Staphylococcus species (66%), followed by Staphylococcus aureus (18%). The sensitivity of tissue culture was 63% and the sensitivity of sonicate fluid culture was 76% (p=0.14). The specificity of tissue culture was 86% and the specificity of sonicate fluid culture was 100%. Sensitivity of sonicate fluid culture in combination with tissue culture was 91% (p=0.045). Table. Comparison of tests for microbiologic diagnosis of PJI Conclusion The combination of sonicate fluid culture and tissue culture had a greater sensitivity than tissue culture alone for microbiologic diagnosis of elbow TEA infection. Disclosures Joachin Sanchez-Sotelo, M.D, PhD, Elsevier (Other Financial or Material Support, Publishing Royalties)Exactech (Consultant)Oxford Univerity Press (Other Financial or Material Support, Publishing Royalties)Stryker (Grant/Research Support)Wright (Consultant) Robin Patel, MD, Accelerate Diagnostics (Grant/Research Support)CD Diagnostics (Grant/Research Support)Contrafect (Grant/Research Support)Curetis (Consultant)GenMark Diagnostics (Consultant)Heraeus Medical (Consultant)Hutchison Biofilm Medical Solutions (Grant/Research Support)Merck (Grant/Research Support)Next Gen Diagnostics (Consultant)PathoQuest (Consultant)Qvella (Consultant)Samsung (Other Financial or Material Support, Dr. Patel has a patent on Bordetella pertussis/parapertussis PCR issued, a patent on a device/method for sonication with royalties paid by Samsung to Mayo Clinic, and a patent on an anti-biofilm substance issued.)Selux Dx (Consultant)Shionogi (Grant/Research Support)Specific Technologies (Consultant)

AbstractIntroductionThe proximal humerus is a common location for primary and non‐primary tumors. Reconstruction of the proximal humerus is commonly performed with an endoprosthesis with low rates of structural failure. The incidence and risk factors for stress shielding are under reported.MethodsThirty‐nine (19 male, 20 female) patients underwent resection of the proximal humerus and reconstruction with a cemented modular endoprosthesis between 2000 and 2018. The mean resection length was 12 ± 4 cm and was most commonly performed for metastatic disease (n = 26, 67%).ResultsStress shielding was observed in 9 (23%) patients at a mean of 29 (6–132) months postoperatively. Patients with stress shielding were noted to have shorter intramedullary stem length (87 vs. 107 mm, p < .001), longer extramedullary implant length (16 vs. 14 cm, p = .01) and a higher extramedullary implant to stem length ratio (2.1 vs. 1.1, p < .001). The incidence of stress shielding was higher (p = .003) in patients reconstructed with 75 mm stem (n = 6, 67%) lengths.ConclusionStress shielding of the humerus was associated with the use of shorter stems and long extramedullary implants. The long‐term ramifications of stress shielding on implant stability, complications at the time of revision surgery, and overall patient outcomes remain unknown.

(1) Background: Arthrofibrosis is a common cause of patient debility and dissatisfaction after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The diversity of molecular pathways involved in arthrofibrosis disease progression suggest that effective treatments for arthrofibrosis may require a multimodal approach to counter the complex cellular mechanisms that direct disease pathogenesis. In this study, we leveraged RNA-seq data to define genes that are suppressed in arthrofibrosis patients and identified adiponectin (ADIPOQ) as a potential candidate. We hypothesized that signaling pathways activated by ADIPOQ and the cognate receptors ADIPOR1 and ADIPOR2 may prevent fibrosis-related events that contribute to arthrofibrosis. (2) Methods: Therefore, ADIPOR1 and ADIPOR2 were analyzed in a TGFβ1 inducible cell model for human myofibroblastogenesis by both loss- and gain-of-function experiments. (3) Results: Treatment with AdipoRon, which is a small molecule agonist of ADIPOR1 and ADIPOR2, decreased expression of collagens (COL1A1, COL3A1, and COL6A1) and the myofibroblast marker smooth muscle α-actin (ACTA2) at both mRNA and protein levels in basal and TGFβ1-induced cells. (4) Conclusions: Thus, ADIPOR1 and ADIPOR2 represent potential drug targets that may attenuate the pathogenesis of arthrofibrosis by suppressing TGFβ-dependent induction of myofibroblasts. These findings also suggest that AdipoRon therapy may reduce the development of arthrofibrosis by mediating anti-fibrotic effects in joint capsular tissues.

Background: The rate of osteoarthritis (OA) in patients with a history of previous anterior shoulder instability (ASI) varies within the literature, with the majority of studies investigating rates after surgical stabilization. ASI appears to lead to increased rates of OA, although risk factors for developing OA in cohorts treated nonoperatively and operatively are not well-defined. Purpose: To determine the incidence of clinically symptomatic OA and identify potential risk factors for the development of OA in patients younger than 40 years with a known history of ASI. Study Design: Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: An established, geographically based database was used to identify patients in the United States who were younger than 40 years and were diagnosed with ASI between 1994 and 2014. Patient information, including demographic, imaging, and surgical details, was collected. Comparative analysis was performed between groups with and without OA at final follow-up as well as between patients who underwent surgical and nonsurgical management. Results: The study population consisted of 154 patients with a mean follow-up of 15.2 years (range, 5.1-29.8 years). The mean age at initial instability event was 20.9 years (95% CI, 19.9-22.0 years). Overall, 22.7% of patients developed clinically symptomatic glenohumeral OA. Multivariate analysis revealed that current or former smokers (odds ratio [OR], 4.3; 95% CI, 1.1-16.5; P = .030), hyperlaxity (OR, 10.1; 95% CI, 1.4-72.4; P = .020), laborer occupation (OR, 6.1; 95% CI, 1.02-36.1; P = .043), body mass index (BMI) (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.03-1.3; P = .012), and age at initial instability (OR, 1.1; 95% CI, 1.02-1.2; P = .013) as potential independent risk factors when accounting for other demographic and clinical variables. Conclusion: In a US geographic population of patients younger than 40 years with ASI, approximately one-fourth of patients developed symptomatic OA at a mean follow-up of 15 years from their first instability event. When accounting for differences in patient demographic and clinical data, we noted a potentially increased risk for the development of OA in patients who are current or former smokers, have hyperlaxity, are laborers, have higher BMI, and have increased age at initial instability event. Smoking status, occupation, and BMI are modifiable factors that could potentially decrease risk for the development of symptomatic OA in these patients.

AbstractIntroductionThe proximal humerus is a common site of primary and metastatic disease in the upper extremity. Historically, the goal of a hemiarthroplasty reconstruction was to provide a stable platform for hand and elbow function, with limited shoulder function. Techniques utilizing a reverse endoprosthesis (endoprosthetic replacement [EPR]) and allograft‐prosthetic composite (APC) have been developed; however, there is a paucity of comparative studies.MethodsA total of 83 (42 females, 41 males) patients undergoing an intraarticular resection of the humerus were reviewed. Reconstructions included 30 reverse and 53 hemiarthroplasty; including hemiarthroplasty EPR (n = 36) and APC (n = 17), and reverse EPR (n = 20) and APC (n = 10).ResultsReverse reconstructions had improved forward elevation (85° vs. 44°, p < .001) and external rotation (30° vs. 21°; p < .001) versus a hemiarthroplasty. Reverse reconstructions had improved American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores (65 vs. 57; p = .01) and Musculoskeletal Tumor Society 93 scores (72 vs. 63; p < .001) versus hemiarthroplasty. Subluxation of the reconstruction was a common (n = 23, 27%), only occurring in hemiarthroplasty patients (EPR [n = 13, 36%] and APC [n = 10, 59%]).ConclusionThe current series highlights the improved functional outcome in patients undergoing reconstruction with a reverse arthroplasty compared to the traditional hemiarthroplasty. Currently reverse shoulder arthroplasty (APC or EPR) is our preferred methods of reconstruction in this patient population.

Background: The rate of elbow medial ulnar collateral ligament (MUCL) injury and surgery continues to rise steadily. While authors have failed to reach a consensus on the optimal graft or anchor configuration for MUCL reconstruction, the vast majority of the literature is focused on the young, elite athlete population utilizing autograft. These studies may not be as applicable for the “weekend warrior” type of patient or for young kids playing on high school leagues or recreationally without the intent or aspiration to participate at an elite level. Purpose: To investigate the clinical outcomes and complication rates of MUCL reconstruction utilizing only allograft sources in nonelite athletes. Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: Patient records were retrospectively analyzed for individuals who underwent allograft MUCL reconstruction at a single institution between 2000 and 2016. A total of 25 patients met inclusion criteria as laborers or nonelite (not collegiate or professional) athletes with a minimum of 2 years of postoperative follow-up. A review of the medical records for the included patients was performed to determine survivorship free of reoperation, complications, and clinical outcomes with use of the Summary Outcome Determination (SOD) and Timmerman-Andrews scores. Statistical analysis included a Wilcoxon rank-sum test to compare continuous variables between groups with an alpha level set at .05 for significance. Subgroup analysis included comparing outcome scores based on the allograft type used. Results: Twenty-five patients met all inclusion and exclusion criteria. The mean time to follow-up was 91 months (range, 25-195 months), and the mean age at the time of surgery was 25 years (range, 12-65 years). There were no revision operations for recurrent instability. The mean SOD score was 9 (range, 5-10) at the most recent follow-up, and the Timmerman-Andrews scores averaged 97 (range, 80-100). Three patients underwent subsequent surgical procedures for ulnar neuropathy (n = 2) and contracture (n = 1), and 1 patient underwent surgical intervention for combined ulnar neuropathy and contracture. Conclusion: Allograft MUCL reconstruction in nonelite athletes demonstrates comparable functional scores with many previously reported autograft outcomes in elite athletes. These results may be informative for elbow surgeons who wish to avoid autograft morbidity in common laborers and nonelite athletes with MUCL incompetency.

Background: When revision elbow arthroplasty is required in the presence of structural proximal ulnar bone loss and triceps insufficiency, structural ulnar bone-grafting and triceps reconstruction are both required to reconstruct the skeleton and to restore active extension. We have developed a technique utilizing a structural proximal ulnar allograft with its attached triceps as an allograft-prosthetic composite (APC) to provide reconstruction of the proximal ulnar bone and deficient extensor mechanism with the same allograft. Methods: Between 2010 and 2017, the senior author performed 10 revision elbow arthroplasties using a proximal ulnar allograft with its intact triceps tendon allograft. The allograft ulna was combined with an ulnar component in an APC fashion, whereas the remaining triceps was repaired to the triceps allograft. Indications for a revision surgical procedure included aseptic loosening in 4 elbows, periprosthetic ulnar fracture with component loosening in 2 elbows, and the second stage of a 2-stage reimplantation in 4 elbows. Two elbows also required humeral APCs due to associated structural humeral bone loss. Postoperatively, all elbows were immobilized in extension for 6 weeks. The mean follow-up time was 45 months (range, 24 to 76 months). Results: Revision elbow arthroplasty resulted in pain improvement in all elbows in a 10-point visual analog scale. The mean flexion-extension arc was 95°, the mean Mayo Elbow Performance Score was 76 points (range, 45 to 95 points), and the mean triceps strength score was 4. There were 6 reoperations: 3 for humeral loosening, 1 for deep infection, 1 for fracture of the ulnar allograft, and 1 for wound debridement and closure. For the 8 elbows with an intact ulnar reconstruction, no ulnar components were radiographically loose, and the ulnar graft was considered radiographically intact and healed in 8 elbows. Conclusions: Reconstruction of the proximal part of the ulna and triceps in failed elbow arthroplasties with structural ulnar bone loss can be effectively accomplished using a structural proximal ulnar allograft as an APC with the preserved triceps tendon for the extensor mechanism reconstruction, but the procedure is associated with an expected high reoperation rate, as is the case in complex revision elbow arthroplasty. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level IV . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Aims Arthrofibrosis is a relatively common complication after joint injuries and surgery, particularly in the knee. The present study used a previously described and validated rabbit model to assess the biomechanical, histopathological, and molecular effects of the mast cell stabilizer ketotifen on surgically induced knee joint contractures in female rabbits. Methods A group of 12 skeletally mature rabbits were randomly divided into two groups. One group received subcutaneous (SQ) saline, and a second group received SQ ketotifen injections. Biomechanical data were collected at eight, ten, 16, and 24 weeks. At the time of necropsy, posterior capsule tissue was collected for histopathological and gene expression analyses (messenger RNA (mRNA) and protein). Results At the 24-week timepoint, there was a statistically significant increase in passive extension among rabbits treated with ketotifen compared to those treated with saline (p = 0.03). However, no difference in capsular stiffness was detected. Histopathological data failed to demonstrate a decrease in the density of fibrous tissue or a decrease in α-smooth muscle actin (α-SMA) staining with ketotifen treatment. In contrast, tryptase and α-SMA protein expression in the ketotifen group were decreased when compared to saline controls (p = 0.007 and p = 0.01, respectively). Furthermore, there was a significant decrease in α-SMA (ACTA2) gene expression in the ketotifen group compared to the control group (p < 0.001). Conclusion Collectively, these data suggest that ketotifen mitigates the severity of contracture formation in a rabbit model of arthrofibrosis. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2020;9(6):302–310.

AbstractPurposeTo compare rates of recurrent instability, revision surgery and functional outcomes following arthroscopic anterior capsulolabral repair for recurrent anterior instability using knot‐tying versus knotless suture anchor techniques.MethodsPatients who had undergone arthroscopic anterior labrum and capsular repair for recurrent anterior glenohumeral instability using knotless anchors were identified. Those with minimum 2‐year follow‐up were matched (1:2) to knot‐tying anchor repair patients. Rates of failure and recurrent instability were compared, as well as Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE), Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (QuickDASH), University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and Rowe scores.ResultsOne hundred and two patients (89 males, 13 females) with a mean age of 24.3 ± 9.6 were included. Repair was performed with knotless anchors in 34 and knot‐tying anchors in 68 shoulders. At mean follow‐up of 4.8 ± 2.5 years, re‐dislocation rates between groups were not significantly different (knotless anchor: 9% versus knot‐tying group: 15%, n.s.), but the knot‐tying group showed a higher re‐subluxation rate (p = 0.039). 12 (18%) revisions were performed in the knot‐tying group at a mean 2.9 years after surgery and 1 (3%) revision in the knotless anchors group at 1.4 years (n.s.). There was no difference in mean VAS with use (1.3 ± 1.9 versus 0.8 ± 1.5, n.s.), SANE scores (91.8 ± 12.7 versus 92.0 ± 11.0, n.s.), QuickDASH scores (4.1 ± 5.5 versus 3.0 ± 6.5, n.s.), UCLA Shoulder Score (32.5 ± 3.6 versus 33.2 ± 3.1, n.s.), or Rowe scores (90.5 ± 18.5 versus 92.2 ± 16.6, n.s.) between knotless and knot‐tying groups, respectively. VAS at rest was higher in the knotless group (0.7 ± 1.5 vs 0.1 ± 0.4, p = 0.021).ConclusionsKnotless anchors demonstrated similar rates of re‐dislocation and revision surgery, and lower rates of recurrent subluxation, compared to knot‐tying anchors. Patients achieved good‐to‐excellent functional outcomes. This supports the efficacy of knotless anchors as an alternative to knot‐tying anchors for arthroscopic anterior labral repair of recurrent anterior shoulder dislocation.Level of evidenceIII.

Abstract Despite recent improvements in surgical implants and techniques, distal humerus nonunion does occur between 8% and 25% of the time. Careful identification and improvement of any modifiable risk factors such as smoking, metabolic disorders, immunosuppressant medications, poor nutritional status and infection is mandatory. A recent computed tomography scan is paramount to determine the nonunion pattern, assess residual bone stock, identify previously placed hardware, and determine whether there is evidence of osteoarthritis or malunion of the articular surface. Internal fixation is the treatment of choice in the majority of patients presenting with reasonable bone stock and preserved articular cartilage; total elbow arthroplasty is an appealing alternative for elbows with severe destruction of the articular cartilage or severe bone loss at the articular segment, especially in older, female patients. Internal fixation requires not only achieving a stable fixation, but also releasing associated elbow contractures and the liberal use of bone graft or substitutes. Although reported union rates after internal fixation of distal humerus nonunions are excellent (over 95%), the complication rate remains very high, and unsatisfactory results do occur. Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2020;5:289-298. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.5.190050