Search

Rotator cuff lesions are a common shoulder pathology mainly affecting patients aged50 years. This condition is accompanied by not only pain and loss of function but also impaired quality of life and psychological stress. A frequently employed treatment option is arthroscopic repair. But expectations regarding the outcome after surgery might differ between patients and surgeons and therefore lead to dissatisfaction on both sides. The aim of this study was to document patient expectations of a planned arthroscopic rotator cuff repair and compare the results with the assessment of shoulder surgeons.A total of 303 patients and 25 surgeons were involved in this study. Patients with partial- or full-thickness tear of the rotator cuff scheduled for arthroscopic repair were included in this study. Preoperatively, they were asked to fill out questionnaires inquiring sociodemographic data, scores of the underlying pathology, as well as expectations regarding the operation with regard to pain relief, gain of range of motion and strength, as well as the effect on activities of daily life, work, and sports. Furthermore, 25 surgeons were surveyed on what they think their patients expected using the same standardized questions.Among the patients, 43.9% considered gain of range of motion to be the most important goal after rotator cuff repair, followed by pain relief (30.6%) and gain of force (13.7%). Among the surgeons, 72% believed pain relief to be the most important for their patient followed by movement (20%) and strength (8%). When asked which parameter was the most important to achieve after operation, for patients, movement was on first place, pain second, and strength third. For shoulder specialists, the ranking was pain, movement, and strength. Surgeons significantly overrated pain relief when ranking against movement compared with their patients.The expectations of patients regarding their operation differ from the surgeon's assessment. Whereas gaining range of motion was more important for patients, surgeons clearly voted for pain relief. Different expectations should therefore be discussed within the pretreatment interview and taken into account when planning the right therapy. This might lead to better satisfaction on both sides.

The aim of this study was to generate more information on the etiology and pathogenesis of medial (MM) and lateral (LM) meniscus root tears. Our hypothesis was that root tears of the MM predominantly result from degenerative damage, whereas root injuries of the LM are mainly of traumatic origin.Consecutively, 53 patients with a root tear of the medial meniscus (MMRT) and 51 patients with a root tear of the lateral meniscus (LMRT) were included in this study. The diagnosis was confirmed radiologically by MRI as well as arthroscopically. In addition to patient-specific data such as age, BMI and trauma history, the leg axis was determined and accompanying injuries (ligamentous and chondrogenic) were documented.The mean age of the MMRT group was 57.2 (± 11.2) years, and that of the LMRT group 33.9 (± 11.4) years. The BMI was significantly higher in the MMRT group compared to the LMRT (30.5 vs. 25.1). 82.4% of patients in the LMRT group demonstrated an accompanying anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture, whereas only 5.7% of the MMRT were associated with an ACL injury. A trauma was described in only 13.2% of patients of the MMRT group in contrast to 88.2% of the LMRT group. An extrusion 3 mm of the MM in the coronal plane of MRI images could be detected in 86.8% of patients, whereas in the LMRT group, it was 15.7%. The mechanical varus angle was 5.6° in the MMRT group and 2.4° in the LMRT group. The rate and degree of concomitant cartilage damage in the affected compartment was significantly higher in the group with medial root injuries than in the group with lateral root tears.The root injuries of the MM and LM show significant differences in terms of patient age, etiology and accompanying injuries. Root injuries to the medial meniscus are mostly of non-traumatic origin and more likely to occur in the context of medial osteoarthritis and varus deformity of the knee. Lateral root tears tend to be predominantly traumatic and are frequently associated with ACL ruptures. However, in the MMRT group, a small subgroup with a traumatic etiology and in the LMRT group a small subgroup of patients with non-traumatic etiology could be identified.III.

Background: Isolated soft tissue injuries of the posterior capsulolabral complex can be addressed arthroscopically, with various anchor systems available for repair. Purpose: To evaluate clinical and patient-reported outcomes after arthroscopic capsulolabral repair in patients with posterior shoulder instability (PSI) and to compare differences in outcomes between patients treated with a suture-first technique (PushLock anchor) and an anchor-first technique (FiberTak all-suture anchor). Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Included were 32 patients with dynamic structural PSI (type B2 according to the ABC classification) treated with an arthroscopic posterior capsulolabral repair. After a mean follow-up time of 4.8 ± 3.4 years (range, 2-11) patients were evaluated clinically, and standardized outcome scores were obtained for the Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV), the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI), Rowe, Kerlan-Jobe Orthopaedic Clinic (KJOC), patient satisfaction (0-5 [best]), and pain on a visual analog scale (VAS; 0-10 [worst]). Results: The overall satisfaction level with the outcome of the surgery was 4.6 ± 0.5 (range, 4-5). No patient suffered from instability events. The mean VAS level for pain was 0.4 ± 0.9 (range, 0-4) at rest and 1.9 ± 2.0 (range, 0-6) during motion. The mean SSV was 80 ± 17 (range, 30-100), the mean postoperative WOSI score 75% ± 19% (range, 18-98), the mean Rowe score 78 ± 20 (range, 10-100), and the mean KJOC score was 81 ± 18 (range, 40-100) for the entire cohort. There was no significant difference between the techniques with regard to range of motion, strength, or clinical outcome scores. Conclusion: Arthroscopic posterior capsulolabral repair was a satisfactory method to treat structural PSI type B2 with regard to stability, pain relief, and functional restoration. The majority of patients had good outcomes. No differences in outcomes were observed between the anchor-first and suture-first techniques.

Background: The goal of this study was to compare the effectiveness of a rotator cuff-sparing postero-inferior (PI) approach with subdeltoidal access to the traditional subscapularis-takedown deltopectoral approach, in terms of implant sizing and positioning in anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA). Methods: This study involved 18 human cadaveric shoulders with intact rotator cuffs and no evidence of head deforming osteoarthritis. An Eclipse stemless aTSA (Arthrex, Naples, FL, USA) was implanted in nine randomly selected specimens using a standard subscapularis-tenotomy deltopectoral approach, and in the other nine specimens using the cuff-sparing PI approach. Pre- and postoperative antero-posterior (AP) and axillary fluoroscopic radiographs were analyzed by two independent, blinded raters for the following parameters: (1) anatomic and prosthetic neck-shaft angle (NSA); (2) the shift between the anatomic and prosthetic center of rotation (COR); (3) anatomical size matching of the prosthetic humeral head; (4) the calculated Anatomic Reconstruction Score (ARS); (5) glenoid positioning; as well as (6) glenoid inclination and version. Results: While the COR was slightly but significantly positioned (p = 0.031) to be more medial in the PI approach group (3.7 ± 3.4%, range: −2.3% to 8.7%) than in the deltopectoral approach group (−0.2 ± 3.6%, range: −6.9% to 4.1%), on average, none of the remaining measured radiographic parameters significantly differed between both groups (PI approach group vs. deltopectoral group: NSA 130° vs. 127°, p = 0.57; COR supero-inferior, 2.6% vs. 1.0%, p = 0.35; COR antero-posterior, 0.9% vs. 1.7%, p = 0.57; head size supero-inferior, 97.3% vs. 98.5%, p = 0.15; head size antero-posterior, 101.1% vs. 100.6%, p = 0.54; ARS, 8.4 vs. 9.3, p = 0.13; glenoid positioning supero-inferior, 49.1% vs. 51.1%, p = 0.33; glenoid positioning antero-posterior, 49.3% vs. 50.4%, p = 0.23; glenoid inclination, 86° vs. 88°, p = 0.27; and glenoid retroversion, 91° vs. 89°, p = 0.27). Conclusions: A PI approach allows for sufficient exposure and orientation to perform rotator-cuff sparing aTSA with acceptable implant sizing and positioning in cadaveric specimens.

In the treatment of anterior shoulder instability with glenoid bone loss, free bone graft transfers have proven to be a viable anatomic alternative to the commonly performed, nonanatomic Latarjet procedure. Implant-free fixation of the free bone grafts, in particular, has rendered excellent short- and long-term results. However, a drawback remains the source of the graft. We describe an arthroscopic bone block cerclage technique using a tricortical scapular spine autograft, which provides an anatomic arthroscopic glenoid reconstruction with the combined benefit of sparing the subscapularis, metal-free fixation, and intraregional donor site for autograft harvesting.

Purpose: The primary goal of shoulder stabilization procedures is to re-establish stability and many surgeons measure the success after shoulder stabilization surgery only by the absence of re-dislocation. However, patients might also suffer from pain, loss of range of motion and strength as well as anxiety and stigmatization and therefore have other expectations from a stabilization surgery than just a stable shoulder. Purpose of this study was to analyze if surgeons know what their patients typically expect from a shoulder stabilization surgery. Furthermore, the aim was to analyze the influence of various factors on patients’ expectations. Materials and Methods: 204 patients with a diagnosis of shoulder instability scheduled for surgical treatment were included in this prospective multicentric study. Preoperatively, objective and subjective scores were obtained and patients were asked about their postoperative expectations. Additionally, 25 surgeons were interviewed with regard to what they think their patients expect from the surgery using standardized questions. Results: With regard to postoperative expectations surveyed by the Hospital for Special Surgery questionnaire (HSS), the most important goal to achieve for the patients was ‘stopping the shoulder from dislocation’, followed by ‘to improve the ability to exercise or participate in sports’ and ‘being the shoulder to be back the way it was before the issue started’. The ranking of factors for patients was ‘stability’ as the most important to achieve, followed by ‘movement’, ‘strength’, ‘pain’ and ‘cosmetics’. For surgeons, the order was ‘stability’ (p = 0.004 **), ‘movement’ (p = 0.225), ‘pain’ (p = 0.509), ‘strength’ (p = 0.007 **) and ‘cosmetics’ (p = 0.181). There was a significant difference between patients and surgeons with regard to gaining stability at the cost of movement (p = 0.001 **). Conclusion: Patients and surgeons expectations regarding outcome after surgical shoulder stabilization procedures are quite similar with limited topics of disagreement. Generally, surgeons tend to overrate the importance of stability at the costs of other factors.