Search

Purpose: To compare the results of patients who underwent Bankart repair with or without concomitant remplissage for treatment of shoulder instability. Methods: All patients who underwent shoulder stabilization for shoulder instability from 2014 to 2019 were evaluated. Patients who underwent remplissage were matched to those patients who received no remplissage based on sex, age, body mass index, and date of surgery. Glenoid bone loss and presence of an engaging Hill–Sachs lesion were quantified by 2 independent investigators. Postoperative complications, recurrent instability, revision, shoulder range of motion (ROM), return to sport (RTS), and patient-reported outcome measures (Oxford Shoulder Instability, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores) were compared between groups. Results: Overall, 31 patients who underwent remplissage were identified and matched to 31 patients who received no remplissage at a mean follow-up of 2.8 ± 1.8 years. Glenoid bone loss was similar between groups (11% vs 11%, P = .956); however, engaging Hill–Sachs lesions were more prevalent in the patients who underwent remplissage than the patients who received no remplissage (84% vs 3%, P < .001). There were no significant differences in rates of redislocation (remplissage: 12.9% vs no remplissage: 9.7%), subjective instability (45.2% vs 25.8%), reoperation (12.9% vs 0%), or revision (12.9% vs 0%) between groups (all P > .05). Also, there were no differences in RTS rates, shoulder range of motion, or patient-reported outcome measures (all P > .05). Conclusions: If a patient is indicated for Bankart repair with concomitant remplissage, surgeons may expect shoulder motion and postoperative outcomes similar to those of patients without engaging Hill–Sachs lesions who undergo Bankart repair without concomitant remplissage. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic case series, level IV.

Purpose: To compare outcomes of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) in patients with prior arthroscopic acromioplasty versus a control group of patients with no history of acromioplasty. Methods: We performed a retrospective matched-cohort study of patients from a single institution who underwent RTSA with a history of acromioplasty from 2009 to 2017 with a minimum 2-year follow-up period. Patients’ clinical outcomes were evaluated using the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons shoulder score and Simple Shoulder Test, visual analog scale, and Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation surveys. Postoperative radiographs and patient charts were reviewed to determine whether patients sustained a postoperative acromial fracture. Charts were reviewed to determine range of motion and postoperative complications. Patients were matched on a 1:1 basis to a cohort of patients who underwent RTSA without a history of acromioplasty, and comparisons were performed using t and χ2 tests. Results: Forty-five patients who underwent RTSA with a history of acromioplasty met the inclusion criteria and completed the outcome surveys. There were no significant differences between cases and controls in post-RTSA American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, visual analog scale, Simple Shoulder Test, or Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation outcome scores. There was no difference in the postoperative acromial fracture rate between cases and controls (P = .577). Overall, more complications occurred in the study group (n = 6, 13.3%) compared with the control group (n = 4, 8.9%); however, this difference was not statistically significant (P = .737). Conclusions: After RTSA, patients who have undergone a prior acromioplasty have similar functional outcomes without a significant difference in the rate of postoperative complications compared with patients with no history of acromioplasty. Furthermore, previous acromioplasty does not increase the risk of acromial fracture after RTSA. Level of Evidence: Level III, retrospective comparative study.

Purpose: To compare the measurements of the Caton–Deschamps index on preoperative magnetic resonance imaging and radiographs of patients undergoing operative management of patellar instability. Methods: Patients who underwent primary medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction and/or tibial tubercle osteotomy between January 2015 and November 2019 were assessed. Caton–Deschamps indices were measured by 3 independent reviewers on both radiographs and magnetic resonance imaging. Intra- and interclass correlation coefficients and a Bland–Altman analysis were calculated to assess inter-rater reliability and measurement agreement between radiographic and magnetic resonance imaging. Results: Seventy-two patients (73 knees) were identified. The average Caton–Deschamps index was 1.23 ± 0.18 on radiograph and 1.26 ± 0.18 on magnetic resonance imaging. Strong inter-rater reliability was observed between reviewers for both radiographic and magnetic resonance imaging Caton–Deschamps indices (intraclass correlation coefficients 0.700 and 0.715, respectively). Pooled observer measurements revealed a moderate agreement between radiographic and magnetic resonance imaging for patella to tibia distance, weak agreement for patellar articular cartilage distance, and strong agreement for the Caton–Deschamps index (intraclass correlation coefficients 0.687, 0.485, and 0.749, respectively). Bland–Altman analysis demonstrated a mean difference in Caton–Deschamps index of –0.03 ± 0.15 (95% limits of agreement: –0.29 to 0.23) between radiographic and magnetic resonance imaging, meaning that Caton–Deschamps indices were on average 0.03 lower on radiographic than on magnetic resonance imaging. Conclusions: The Caton–Deschamps index has strong agreement between radiographic and magnetic resonance imaging in patients undergoing patellar stabilization surgery. Either modality can be reliably used to preoperatively assess patellar height. Level of Evidence: Level IV, diagnostic case series.

Purpose: Examine demographic factors of all patients treated for adhesive capsulitis by a single surgeon, report the treatments and outcomes of these patients, and determine the effectiveness of various treatments, including corticosteroid injections and operative intervention in relation to risk factors for adhesive capsulitis. Methods: All patients treated for adhesive capsulitis by a single surgeon between 2008 to 2014 with minimum 2 years' follow-up were identified via charts and operative reports and were eligible for inclusion. Demographic information including sex and medical comorbidities was documented. Preintervention and postintervention shoulder range of motion was recorded. Specific treatment information (number of corticosteroid injections, etc) was collected. Treatment outcomes were then compared as an aggregate and among varying comorbidities. Results: Overall, 1377 patients were treated for adhesive capsulitis (946 women vs 431 men [P = .001]). For patients with adhesive capsulitis: a higher percentage of men than women had diabetes (24.8% vs 17.3% [P = .001]); nondiabetic patients had better forward flexion at initial presentation than patients with diabetes (114° vs 108° [P = .015]); more patients with diabetes required capsular release than nondiabetic patients (13% vs 7.3% [P = .003]); more nondiabetic patients resolved adhesive capsulitis without corticosteroid or surgical intervention than patients with diabetes (83.6% vs 61.7% [P = .001]); more nondiabetic patients resolved adhesive capsulitis after single corticosteroid injection than did patients with diabetes (95.9% vs 86.7% [P = .001]). Multiple intraarticular corticosteroid injections provided no added benefit over a single injection in resolving adhesive capsulitis in patients with diabetes and nondiabetic patients. Conclusion: In shoulder adhesive capsulitis, women and patients with diabetes are more commonly affected, patients with diabetes respond less favorably to physical therapy in isolation and physical therapy plus corticosteroid injections than nondiabetic patients. No benefit from multiple intraarticular corticosteroid injections was seen compared with a single intraarticular corticosteroid injection in patients with diabetes and nondiabetic patients. Patients with diabetes and nondiabetic patients have functional improvement after capsular release and manipulation if conservative treatment for adhesive capsulitis fails. Level of Evidence: III, case control.