Archive | Shoulder RSS for this section

What’s New in Shoulder and Elbow Surgery 2017

Shoulder & elbowEvery month, JBJS publishes a Specialty Update—a review of the most pertinent and impactful studies published in the orthopaedic literature during the previous year in 13 subspecialties. Click here for a collection of all OrthoBuzz Specialty Update summaries.

This month, Aaron Chamberlain, MD, co-author of the October 18, 2017 Specialty Update on shoulder and elbow surgery, selected the most clinically compelling findings from among the 36 studies summarized in the Specialty Update.

Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty
With reverse shoulder arthroplasty, surgeons often have difficulty setting expectations for patients due to the lack of long-term outcomes data. Bacle et al. published a study that describes the clinical outcomes in patients with at least 10 years’ follow-up. Medium-term outcomes among  an original cohort of 186 patients had been previously described. Eighty-four of those original patients were available for a mean long-term follow-up of 150 months. The mean overall Constant score fell from 63 at medium-term follow-up to 55 at final follow-up.  Active anterior elevation also decreased from 138° to 131.° Despite the decrease in Constant score and ROM between mid- and long-term follow-up, these two measures remained significantly better than preoperative values. Analysis showed a 93% implant survival probability at 120 months. This study will help surgeons counsel patients regarding long-term expectations after reverse shoulder arthroplasty – especially as younger patients are increasingly indicated for this procedure.

Rotator Cuff Repair
A central focus of studies evaluating rotator cuff repair has been to better understand the biological environment that influences tendon healing. Greater understanding of the genetic influence in rotator cuff pathology may lead to interventions that could improve the healing environment.  Tashjian et al. reported outcomes after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair in 72 patients who were assessed for family history of rotator cuff tears and underwent a genetic analysis looking for variants in the estrogen-related receptor beta (ESRRB) gene.1 Positive family history and tear retraction were associated with a failure of healing, and lateral tendon retears were associated with both family history and the presence of a single nucleotide polymorphism in the ESRRB gene.

In another recent study focused on the biological healing environment after rotator cuff repair, a prospective randomized trial of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in patients undergoing repair of a medium to large-sized rotator cuff tear2 found that patients who received PRP experienced an increase in vascularity at the repair site up to 3 months postoperatively. The PRP group also demonstrated better Constant-Murley and UCLA scores and lower retear rates than the no-PRP group, but there was no difference in ASES scores. In another recent randomized trial, 120 patients were randomized to either PRP or ropivacaine injection after rotator cuff repair.3 No between-group differences in clinical outcome scores or retear rates were identified. The contrasting results of these two recent randomized studies illustrate the challenge of identifying any conclusive benefit of PRP in the setting of rotator cuff repair.

Prosthetic Shoulder Infection
Accurate diagnosis of prosthetic shoulder infection continues to present a formidable challenge, given the difficulty of detecting Proprionibacterium acnes (P. acnes) and interpreting when positive results are clinically significant. Development of P. acnes tests that are more rapid and precise in identifying clinically significant infections would be of significant value.  Holmes et al. evaluated a PCR restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) technique to identify P. acnes from infected tissue in the shoulder.4 In this study, within 24 hours of sampling, the PCR-RFLP assay detected P. acnes-specific amplicons in as few as 10 bacterial cells.

Clavicle Fractures
Approaches to managing clavicle fractures have evolved significantly over the past several decades. While it was once generally accepted that middle third clavicle fractures should be managed nonoperatively, multiple studies have described concerning rates of nonunions and symptomatic malunions. A multicenter prospective trial that randomized patients to either surgical fixation with a plate or nonoperative management identified a nonunion rate of 23.1% in the nonoperatively managed group, compared with a 2.4% nonunion rate in the surgically treated group (p<0.0001). However, the rate of secondary operations was 27.4% in the operatively treated group (most for plate removal) versus 17.1% in the nonoperative group, although that difference did not reach statistical significance (p=0.18). These results will help inform discussions between providers and patients when considering management options for midshaft clavicle fractures.

References

  1. Tashjian RZ, Granger EK, Zhang Y, Teerlink CC, Cannon-Albright LA. Identification of a genetic variant associated with rotator cuff repair healing. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2016. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2016.02.019.
  2. Pandey V, Bandi A, Madi S, et al. Does application of moderately concentrated platelet-rich plasma improve clinical and structural outcome after arthroscopic repair of medium-sized to large rotator cuff tear? A randomized controlled trial. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2016;26(3):e82-e83. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2016.01.036.
  3. Flury M, Rickenbacher D, Schwyzer H-K, et al. Does Pure Platelet-Rich Plasma Affect Postoperative Clinical Outcomes After Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair? Am J Sports Med. 2016. doi:10.1177/0363546516645518.
  4. Holmes S, Pena Diaz AM, Athwal GS, Faber KJ, O’Gorman DB. Neer Award 2017: A rapid method for detecting Propionibacterium acnes in surgical biopsy specimens from the shoulder. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2017. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2016.10.001.

Nov. 15 Webinar—Treating Clavicle Fractures

Capture_Clavicle FX for OBuzzOn November 15, 2017 at 7 PM EDTJBJS will join with JSES (Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery) to present a webinar looking at the current paradigm for treating  clavicle fractures. Co-moderated by Drs. William Mallon, editor-in-chief of JSES, and Andrew Green, deputy editor of JBJS, the webinar will focus on two recent clavicle-fracture papers:

  • Dr. Philip Ahrens will discuss his recent JBJS paper, “The Clavicle Trial: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Operative with Nonoperative Treatment of Displaced Midshaft Clavicle Fractures.”
  • Dr. Brian Feeley will discuss his 2016 JSES paper, “Plate Fixation of Midshaft Clavicular Fractures: Patient-Reported Outcomes and Hardware-Related Complications.”

After each author presentation, expert commentary will be provided. Discussing Dr. Ahrens’ paper will be Dr. Michael McKee, recently named chairman of orthopaedics at the University of Arizona. Dr. Gus Mazzocca, chairman of orthopaedics at the University of Connecticut, will comment on Dr. Feeley’s paper. The webinar will then be open to addressing viewer-submitted questions for the authors and the commentators.

Seats are limited, so register now!

Anatomic and Reverse Shoulder Replacement: Comparing Improvements Over Time

ATSA vs RTSA for OBuzz
Although the indications for anatomic and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) are different, better understanding of the rate of improvement with each type of surgery could help establish more realistic patient expectations for recovery—and help surgeons and physical therapists design different strategies for postoperative care. With those goals in mind, Simovitch et al. use prospectively collected data to compare, at a minimum 2-year follow-up, clinical and range-of-motion (ROM) outcomes among 505 anatomic TSA patients and 678 reverse TSA patients. The findings appear in in the November 1, 2017 issue of JBJS.

The authors tracked five clinical outcome scores (SST, UCLA Shoulder, ASES, Constant, and SPADI), along with 4 relevant ROM measures. In both groups, >95% of patients reported clinical improvement in all 5 clinical metrics by 6 months, and full improvement was noted by 24 months. Not surprisingly, the mean age of patients who underwent reverse TSA was >5 years older and their shoulder-function scores and ROM were generally worse than those of the anatomic TSA patients.

At the time of the latest follow-up, patients who underwent anatomic TSA fared significantly better than patients who underwent reverse TSA in 3 of the 5 clinical outcome metrics and in all 4 ROM measurements. On the other hand, those who had reverse TSAs had significantly larger improvements in the Constant score (which emphasizes strength more than the other 4 clinical metrics) and active forward flexion.

ROM-wise, at approximately 6 years after surgery, the authors noted a progressive decrease in the magnitude of improvement for abduction and forward flexion in both groups. According to Simovitch et al., the observed discrepancies between clinical and ROM outcomes at longer-term follow-up suggest that “subjective (e.g., patient-reported) assessments of outcome and function likely continue to be stable or improve despite range-of-motion worsening and, as such, may imply that patient expectations change with follow-up time.”

Webinar—Patient-Centered Treatment of Clavicle Fractures

pic of Nov speakers to use

Clavicle fractures are among the most common injuries treated by orthopaedists. Until 2005, no matter the amount of displacement, standard treatment was immobilization for a few weeks, followed by gradually increased activity until the fracture healed. In 2007, Dr. Mike McKee published a landmark article in JBJS that concluded that clavicle fractures with displacement greater than 100% had better outcomes if treated with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF). Since that time, numerous studies have re-examined this question, some supporting Dr. McKee’s 2007 findings, and some disputing them.

On November 15, 2017 at 7 PM EDTJBJS will join with JSES (Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery) to present a webinar looking at the current paradigm for treating  clavicle fractures. Moderated by Dr. William Mallon, editor-in-chief of JSES, the webinar will focus on two recent clavicle-fracture papers:

  • Dr. Philip Ahrens will discuss his recent JBJS paper, “The Clavicle Trial: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Operative with Nonoperative Treatment of Displaced Midshaft Clavicle Fractures.”
  • Dr. Brian Feeley will discuss his 2016 JSES paper, “Plate Fixation of Midshaft Clavicular Fractures: Patient-Reported Outcomes and Hardware-Related Complications.”

After each author presentation, expert commentary will be provided. Discussing Dr. Ahrens’ paper will be Dr. Michael McKee, recently named chairman of orthopaedics at the University of Arizona. Dr. Gus Mazzocca, chairman of orthopaedics at the University of Connecticut, will comment on Dr. Feeley’s paper. The webinar will then be open to addressing viewer-submitted questions for the authors and the commentators.

Seats are limited, so register now!

 

More Clinical Data on the “Clavicle Question”

clavicle_fracture_for_obuzzThe last time OrthoBuzz reported on a JBJS randomized trial looking at treatment of midshaft clavicle fractures, the authors concluded that “neither treatment option [nonoperative or surgical] is clearly superior for all patients” and that “the clavicular fracture is preeminently suitable for shared treatment decision-making.”

Now, a multicenter randomized trial by Ahrens et al. published in the August 16, 2017 JBJS adds more data for that shared decision-making discussion. In this trial, 300 patients with a displaced midshaft clavicle fracture were randomized to receive either open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with a plate or nonoperative management. Patients were recruited from a range of UK hospitals, and a single implant and standardized technique were used in the operative group. The rehabilitation protocol was the same for both groups.

The union rate in both groups at 3 months was low, approximately 70%. But at 9 months after the injury, the nonunion rate was <1% in the surgically treated patients, compared to 11% in the nonsurgically treated patients. The patient-reported scores (DASH and Constant-Murley) were significantly better in the operative group at 6 weeks and 3 months, but were equivalent to those in the nonoperative group at 9 months.

“Overall,” the authors conclude, “we think that surgical treatment for a displaced midshaft clavicle fracture should be offered to patients, and [these findings] can provide clear, robust data to help patients make their choices.”

Rotator Cuff Repair Integrity is Important

Supraspinatus Tear for OBuzzAmong the estimated 250,000 surgical rotator cuff repairs performed annually in the US, a growing percentage are being done on younger patients to prevent tear propagation and tissue degeneration. But how durable are the outcomes of those procedures?

In the August 16, 2017 issue of The Journal, Collin et al. report the 10-plus-year results of surgical repair of isolated supraspinatus tears. In this rather large cohort (288 patients with an average age of 57 years evaluated clinically, with 210 of those also evaluated with MRI), complications were not uncommon at 10.4%. On a more positive note, the average Constant score improved from about 52 before surgery to 78 at 10 years after surgery. The 10-year Constant scores correlated with MRI-determined repair integrity but were inversely associated with preoperative fatty infiltration of the supraspinatus.

These findings imply that careful patient selection based on both clinical factors and imaging studies is critically important in identifying patients with the best chance for good, long-term functional results. The presence of a cuff tear, particularly a large chronic one, is not always a surgical indication for repair. For example, Collin et al. found that the rate of retears was significantly higher in patients >65 years old than in those who were younger.

As is frequently the case in orthopaedics, we need additional prospective research with long-term functional and anatomic repair outcomes to better understand which patients are most likely to benefit from early repair of an isolated supraspinatus tear.

Marc Swiontkowski, MD
JBJS Editor-in-Chief

A Paean to Shoulder Pioneer Doug Harryman

WI_Matsen_Graphic.png

The June 7, 2017 issue of JBJS contains one more in a series of personal essays where orthopaedic clinicians tell a story about a high-impact experience they had that altered their worldview, enhanced them personally, and positively affected the care they provide as orthopaedic physicians.

This “What’s Important” piece comes from Dr. Frederick A. Matsen, III of the University of Washington. In his moving tribute to former colleague Doug Harryman, Dr. Matsen explains how his friend and mentor’s devotion to improving patient outcomes was matched by an unwavering faith that permeated every aspect of his life. The article includes a link to a series of engaging videos that Dr. Harryman made to share his many discoveries about shoulder function with the world.

If you would like JBJS to consider your “What’s Important” story for publication, please submit a manuscript via Editorial Manager. When asked to select an article type, please choose Orthopaedic Forum and include “What’s Important:” at the beginning of the title.

Because they are personal in nature, “What’s Important” submissions will not be subject to the usual stringent JBJS peer-review process. Instead, they will be reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief, who will correspond with the author if revisions are necessary and make the final decision regarding acceptance.

Sports Medicine Update

What's_New_Sports_Med_Image_for_O'Buzz.pngEvery month, JBJS publishes a Specialty Update—a review of the most pertinent and impactful studies published in the orthopaedic literature during the previous year in 13 subspecialties. Click here for a collection of all OrthoBuzz Specialty Update summaries.

The May 17, 2017 JBJS Specialty Update on Sports Medicine reflects evidence in the field of sports medicine published from September 2015 to August 2016. Although this review is not exhaustive of all research that might be pertinent to sports medicine, it highlights many key articles that contribute to the existing evidence base in the field.

Topics covered include:

  • Prevention of Musculoskeletal Injuries
  • Autograft vs Allograft ACL Reconstruction
  • Anterior Shoulder Stabilization
  • Hip Arthroscopy

Fracture Liaison Service Boosts Patient Engagement with Secondary Prevention

fragility fractures for O'Buzz.pngOrthoBuzz has published several posts about osteoporosis, fragility fractures, and secondary fracture prevention. In the May 17, 2017 edition of JBJS, Bogoch et al. add to evidence suggesting that a coordinator-based fracture liaison service (FLS) improves engagement with secondary-prevention practices among inpatients and outpatients with a fragility fracture.

The Division of Orthopaedic Surgery at the University of Toronto initiated a coordinator-based FLS in 2002 to educate patients with a fragility fracture and refer them for BMD testing and management, including pharmacotherapy if appropriate. Bogoch et al. analyzed key clinical outcomes from 2002 to 2013 among a cohort of 2,191 patients who were not undergoing pharmacotherapy when they initially presented with a fragility fracture.

  • Eighty-four percent of inpatients and 85% of outpatients completed BMD tests as recommended.
  • Eighty-five percent of inpatients and 79% of outpatients who were referred to follow-up bone health management were assessed by a specialist or primary care physician.
  • Among those who attended the referral appointment, 73% of inpatients and 52% of outpatients received a prescription for anti-osteoporosis medication.

The authors conclude that “a coordinator-based fracture liaison service, with an engaged group of orthopaedic surgeons and consultants…achieved a relatively high rate of patient investigation and pharmacotherapy for patients with a fragility fracture.”