Search

Rotator cuff pathology is a very common source of shoulder pain. Similarly, osteoarthritis of the glenohumeral joint can cause shoulder pain and produce similar symptoms. Surgical management can be indicated for both pathologies, however, outcomes data is limited when examining rotator cuff repair (RCR) in the setting of glenohumeral arthritis (GHOA). Thus, this study sought to determine outcomes for patients who undergo RCR in the setting of GHOA.To evaluate if a relationship exists between outcomes of RCR in the setting of GHOA.This was a retrospective analysis of patients who underwent arthroscopic rotator cuff repair with concurrent glenohumeral osteoarthritis between 2010-2017. Patients were stratified based on rotator cuff tear size and glenohumeral osteoarthritis severity. Cohorts were paired 1:1 with patients without glenohumeral osteoarthritis. Patients included had a minimum two year follow-up. Rate of conversion to total shoulder arthroplasty, complication rates following initial surgery, and patient-reported outcome measures were collected.A total of 142 patients were included. The number of patients that required total shoulder arthroplasty within two years after index surgery was low. 2/71 (2.8%) patients with GHOA, and 1/71 (1.4%) without GHOA. Following rotator cuff repair, both groups showed favorable patient-reported outcomes.Patients with glenohumeral osteoarthritis who underwent arthroscopic rotator cuff repair showed comparable outcomes to patients without glenohumeral osteoarthritis.

Background: Focal cartilage lesions of the knee remain a difficult entity to treat. Current treatment options include arthroscopic debridement, microfracture, autograft or allograft osteochondral transplantation, and cell-based therapies such as autologous chondrocyte transplantation. Osteochondral transplantation techniques restore the normal topography of the condyles and provide mature hyaline cartilage in a single-stage procedure. However, clinical outcomes comparing autograft versus allograft techniques are scarce. Purpose: To perform a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of high-quality studies to evaluate the results of osteochondral autograft and allograft transplantation for the treatment of symptomatic cartilage defects of the knee. Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: A comprehensive search of the literature was conducted using various databases. Inclusion criteria were level 1 or 2 original studies, studies with patients reporting knee cartilage injuries and chondral defects, mean follow-up ≥2 years, and studies focusing on osteochondral transplant techniques. Exclusion criteria were studies with nonknee chondral defects, studies reporting clinical outcomes of osteochondral autograft or allograft combined with other procedures, animal studies, cadaveric studies, non–English language studies, case reports, and reviews or editorials. Primary outcomes included patient-reported outcomes and failure rates associated with both techniques, and factors such as lesion size, age, sex, and the number of plugs transplanted were assessed. Metaregression using a mixed-effects model was utilized for meta-analyses. Results: The search resulted in 20 included studies with 364 cases of osteochondral autograft and 272 cases of osteochondral allograft. Mean postoperative survival was 88.2% in the osteochondral autograft cohort as compared with 87.2% in the osteochondral allograft cohort at 5.4 and 5.2 years, respectively ( P = .6605). Patient-reported outcomes improved by an average of 65.1% and 81.1% after osteochondral autograft and allograft, respectively ( P = .0001). However, meta-analysis revealed no significant difference in patient-reported outcome percentage change between osteochondral autograft and allograft ( P = .97) and a coefficient of 0.033 (95% CI, –1.91 to 1.98). Meta-analysis of the relative risk of graft failure after osteochondral autograft versus allograft showed no significant differences ( P = .66) and a coefficient of 0.114 (95% CI, –0.46 to 0.69). Furthermore, the regression did not find other predictors (mean age, percentage of female patients, lesion size, number of plugs/grafts used, and treatment location) that may have significantly affected patient-reported outcome percentage change or postoperative failure between osteochondral autograft versus allograft. Conclusion: Osteochondral autograft and allograft result in favorable patient-reported outcomes and graft survival rates at medium-term follow-up. While predictors for outcomes such as mean age, percentage of female patients, lesion size, number of plugs/grafts used, and treatment location did not affect the comparison of the 2 cohorts, proper patient selection for either procedure remains paramount to the success and potentially long-term viability of the graft.

Background A total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) system utilizing an inlay glenoid component has been proposed as a means of reducing glenoid component loosening while still providing patients with desirable functional and clinical outcomes. The purpose of this study was to systematically review current outcomes literature on TSA using an inlay glenoid component. Methods A literature search was conducted using PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Web of Science databases. Studies comparing pre- and postoperative functional and clinical outcomes were included. Results Five studies with 148 shoulders (133 patients) were included. Patient-reported outcomes improved, including the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (mean change 34.1 to 80.6), Penn Shoulder Score (mean change 43.3 to 85.5), Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation score (mean change 34.1 to 80.6), and visual analog scale-pain (mean change 6.9 to 1.6). Range of motion improved for forward elevation (mean change 109.6 to 156.2) and external rotation (mean change 21.5 to 50.8). Glenoid component loosening occurred in one shoulder (0.68%). Two revision surgeries (1.35%) were performed. Discussion The use of an inlay glenoid component is associated with improvements in postoperative pain, function, and satisfaction while minimizing rates of glenoid component loosening and the need for revision surgery over short-term follow-up. Level of evidence systematic review, level IV

To compare subjective and objective outcomes of fibular and combined tibial-fibular (TF)-based posterolateral corner (PLC) reconstruction.A systematic review of literature reporting outcomes of posterolateral corner reconstruction was conducted including outcome studies of surgically treated PLC injuries with a minimum 1-year follow-up, postoperative subjective and objective outcomes including the patient-reported outcome scorings of Lysholm score, International Knee Documentation Committee evaluation (subjective and objective), dial test, and varus stress radiographs.The 32 studies included comprised 40 cohorts: 12 cohorts (n = 350 knees) used a fibular-based technique, and 28 cohorts (n = 593 knees) used a combined TF-based technique. No statistically significant differences were found in patient-reported outcomes or objective clinical measurements comparing the two techniques using the Lysholm score (P = 0.204, τ2 = 3.46), International Knee Documentation Committee evaluation (subjective P = 0.21 τ2 = 15.57; objective P = 0.398), dial test (P = 0.69), or varus stress radiographs (P = 0.98, τ2 = 0.08).This study found no statistically significant differences in subjective or objective clinical outcome measurements after fibular-based versus combined TF-based PLC reconstruction. Further prospective evaluation comparing long-term clinical outcomes, complications, and surgical time may help to elucidate a preferred reconstructive technique.