Search

Background: The uncemented Nottingham Total Shoulder Replacement prosthesis system (Nottingham TSR) was developed from the previous BioModular® shoulder prosthesis taking into consideration the causes of the initial implant's failure. We investigated the impact of changes in the design of Nottingham TSR prosthesis on its survivorship rate. Methods: Survivorship analyses of three types of uncemented total shoulder arthroplasty prostheses (BioModular®, initial Nottingham TSR and current Nottingham TSR systems with 11, 8 and 4 year survivorship data respectively) were compared. All these prostheses were implanted for the treatment of disabling pain in the shoulder due to primary and secondary osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis. Each type of the prosthesis studied was implanted in consecutive group of patients - 90 patients with BioModular® system, 103 with the initial Nottingham TSR and 34 patients with the current Nottingham TSR system. The comparison of the annual cumulative survivorship values in the compatible time range between the three groups was done according to the paired t test. Results: The 8-year and 11-year survivorship rates for the initially used modified BioModular® uncemented prosthesis were relatively low (75.6% and 71.7% respectively) comparing to the reported survivorship of the conventional cemented implants. The 8-year survivorship for the uncemented Nottingham TSR prosthesis was significantly higher (81.8%), but still not in the desired range of above 90%, that is found in other cemented designs. Glenoid component loosening was the main factor of prosthesis failure in both prostheses and mainly occurred in the first 4 postoperative years. The 4-year survivorship of the currently re-designed Nottingham TSR prosthesis, with hydroxylapatite coating of the glenoid baseplate, was significantly higher, 93.1% as compared to 85.1% of the previous Nottingham TSR. Conclusion: The initial Nottingham shoulder prosthesis showed significantly higher survivorship than the BioModular® uncemented prosthesis, but lower than expected. Subsequently re-designed Nottingham TSR system presented a high short term survivorship rate that encourages its ongoing use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Health Economists in Denmark have reported poor outcomes and low and delayed return to work for patients treated for Sub-Acromial Impingement syndrome (SAIS) by Arthroscopic Sub-Acromial Decompression (ASAD). In this setting it is important to evaluate outcomes following this commonly performed operation to justify undertaking it on our patients. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of ASAD for patients with SAIS and correlate clinical outcome with rate of return to work.Methods: Prospective cohort study and retrospective review of data from the Nottingham Shoulder database. Inclusion criteria: Patients diagnosed clinically with SAIS by an experienced shoulder surgeon, who have failed conservative treatment (physiotherapy and sub-acromial injection), undergoing ASAD. Pre-operative and 6-month post-operative Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS) and Constant Score (CS) were compared. The rates of return to pre-operative work and hobbies were also analysed. Statistical analysis was carried out using the Wilcoxon signed rank test.Results: 73 patients with OSS (51 also with CS documentation) were included. The improvement in median OSS between pre-operative (24) and 6-month follow-up (39) was +15 (Z = -6.726, p < 0.0001, T = 6, r = 0.55). The difference in median CS between pre-operative (39) and 6-month follow-up (67) was +28 (Z = -5.435, p < 0.0001,T = 6, r = 0.59). Improvement in median pain score was +5 (7,12, p < 0.0001) median ADL was +5.5 (10.5,16, p < 0.0001) median ROM was +13 (18,31, p < 0.0001) and median strength was +4 (3,7, p < 0.0001). 76% returned to their pre-operative level of work (mean time = 11.5 weeks post surgery). 79% returned to pre-operative hobbies at a mean of 11.8 weeks after surgery.Conclusion: There is a significant improvement in both subjective and objective outcome 6 months after ASAD in patients with SAIS who have had previous failed conservative treatment. The rate of return to work was good for these patients in contrast to that reported for Danish patients. ASAD is a successful method of treatment for patients with SAIS who have had an initial trial of failed conservative treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Proximal humeral fractures, which occur mainly in older adults, account for approximately 4 to 5% of all fractures. Approximately 40% of these fractures are displaced fractures involving the surgical neck. Management of this group of fractures is often challenging and the outcome is frequently unsatisfactory. In particular it is not clear whether surgery gives better outcomes than non-surgical management. Currently there is much variation in the use of surgery and a lack of good quality evidence to inform this decision., Methods/design: We aim to undertake a pragmatic UK-based multi-centre randomised controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of surgical versus standard non-surgical treatment for adults with an acute closed displaced fracture of the proximal humerus with involvement of the surgical neck. The choice of surgical intervention is left to the surgeon, who must use techniques that they are fully experienced with. This will avoid 'learning curve' problems. We will promote good standards of non-surgical care, similarly insisting on care-provider competence, and emphasize the need for comparable provision of rehabilitation for both groups of patients.We aim to recruit 250 patients from a minimum of 18 NHS trauma centres throughout the UK. These patients will be followed-up for 2 years. The primary outcome is the Oxford Shoulder Score, which will be collected via questionnaires completed by the trial participants at 6, 12 and 24 months. This is a 12-item condition-specific questionnaire providing a total score based on the person's subjective assessment of pain and activities of daily living impairment. We will also collect data for other outcomes, including general health measures and complications, and for an economic evaluation. Additionally, we plan a systematic collection of reasons for non-inclusion of eligible patients who were not recruited into the trial, and their baseline characteristics, treatment preferences and intended treatment., Discussion: This article presents the protocol for a multi-centre randomised controlled trial. It gives extensive details of, and the basis for, the chosen methods, and describes the key measures taken to avoid bias and to ensure validity., Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN50850043.