Showing posts with label arthritis of the shoulder. Show all posts
Showing posts with label arthritis of the shoulder. Show all posts

Wednesday, April 2, 2025

Is pyrocarbon better than a ream and run? - a randomized controlled trial


"We need a randomized controlled trial to determine whether patients with shoulder arthritis having a pyrocarbon humeral head have better outcomes than those having a ream and run".

In discussing this topic it may be worthwhile starting with a classic example of an orthopaedic RCT

A Controlled Trial of Arthroscopic Surgery for Osteoarthritis of the Knee The reader will easily see the care exerted by the investigators to define the two groups to be compared (debridement vs sham surgery, the randomization, the blinding of the evaluators, the primary outcome measure (the Knee-Specific Pain Scale), and the outcomes ("At no point did either of the intervention groups report less pain or better function than the placebo group. Furthermore, the 95 percent confidence intervals for the differences between the placebo group and the intervention groups exclude any clinically meaningful difference.") Interestingly, in spite of this result, arthroscopic debridement for knee osteoarthritis is still being performed.

Before considering a randomized controlled trial, investigators must listen to this recent presentation: American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons webinar on randomized controlled trials. This very well done webinar was both impressive and daunting. It pointed out the organization, cost and the challenges of RCTs.

Stimulated by the above, I started making a check list of questions to be answered before considering an RCT comparing pyrocarbon humeral hemiarthroplasty to the ream and run procedure. I suspect that there are others that should be included.

I. What should be the primary outcome variable (POV)?
    A. Wear rate
    B. Patient reported outcome measure (PROM)
        1. Final PROM
        2. Change in PROM
    B. Satisfaction
    C. Complication rate (e.g. infections)
    D. Revision rate
II. How long after surgery should the POV be assessed
III. For the selected POV, what are the published mean, median, standard deviation, and 90% confidence levels for 
    A. Pyrocarbon humeral hemiarthroplasty 
    B. Ream and run procedure
IV. How much change in the selected POV would be clinically significant (effect size)
V. What sample size would be necessary to detect a clinically significant change in the POV with reasonable statistical power (e.g. 80%) (see Sample size, power and effect size revisited: simplified and practical approaches in pre-clinical, clinical and laboratory studies)
VI. What percent of the potential candidates for the study would agree to be enrolled in a study that had their surgical procedure selected at random; in what ways do consenting and non-consenting patients differ? 
VII. What percent of those enrolled are likely to drop out before the desired followup time interval; in what ways do patients not completing the study differ from those that complete it?
VIII. What are the confounding variables and how will they be documented and included in the analysis

    A. The surgeon (experience, published outcomes)
    B. The component (make, size, stem, position)
    C. Patient demographics (age, sex, comorbidities)
    D. Preoperative pathology (type of arthritis, glenoid type, version, cuff status, centering, shoulder size, prior surgery)
    E. Simultaneous procedures (glenoid reaming (accepting or correcting glenoid version), biceps management (preservation, tenotomy, tenodesis), posterior capsular plication, rotator interval plication, cuff surgery, AC joint surgery)
IX. Study details
    A. How will decisions be made
    B. Prospective involvement of statistician
    C. Initial and followup meeting of investigators
    D. Where will data be housed
    E. Human subjects clearances
        1. Locally at each study site
        2. Centrally
    F. Staffing
    G. Funding
    H. How will blinding be managed (patient, followup, etc)

Comments welcome!


You can support cutting edge shoulder research that is leading to better care for patients with shoulder problems, click on this link

Follow on twitter/X: https://x.com/RickMatsen
Follow on facebook: https://www.facebook.com/shoulder.arthritis
Follow on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/rick-matsen-88b1a8133/

Here are some videos that are of shoulder interest
Shoulder arthritis - what you need to know (see this link).
How to x-ray the shoulder (see this link).
The ream and run procedure (see this link).
The total shoulder arthroplasty (see this link).
The cuff tear arthropathy arthroplasty (see this link).
The reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (see this link).
The smooth and move procedure for irreparable rotator cuff tears (see this link)
Shoulder rehabilitation exercises (see this link).

 

Saturday, June 3, 2023

Arthritis of the shoulder- what patients need to know about the symptoms, diagnosis and treatment of shoulder arthritis

  



What questions do patients have about shoulder joint replacement?

What are the parts of the shoulder and how do they work?



I. What is shoulder arthritis?

II. What are the types of shoulder arthritis?

III. How is shoulder arthritis diagnosed?

IV. What can be done for shoulder arthritis without surgery?

V. What are the important surgical options for treating shoulder arthritis?

VI. What can be done if a shoulder replacement fails to give the desired result?

The Cliff Notes about shoulder arthritis

You can support cutting edge shoulder research that is leading to better care for patients with shoulder problems, click on this link.

Follow on twitter: https://twitter.com/shoulderarth
Follow on facebook: click on this link
Follow on facebook: https://www.facebook.com/frederick.matsen
Follow on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/rick-matsen-88b1a8133/

Here are some videos that are of shoulder interest
Shoulder arthritis - what you need to know (see this link).
How to x-ray the shoulder (see this link).
The ream and run procedure (see this link).
The total shoulder arthroplasty (see this link).
The cuff tear arthropathy arthroplasty (see this link).
The reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (see this link).
The smooth and move procedure for irreparable rotator cuff tears (see this link).
Shoulder rehabilitation exercises (see this link).

Monday, June 14, 2021

Shoulder arthritis in the young patient - durability of the ream and run

An active man in his mid 50's presented with pain and loss of function in the right shoulder after a prior labral repair. Because he wished to avoid the risks and limitations associated with a polyethylene glenoid component, he desired to proceed with a ream and run procedure. His preoperative radiograph is shown below. 

After surgery he has been able to return fully to his activities. His x-ray 13 years after surgery is shown below.
 


Three years after his right shoulder arthroplasty he presented with pain and stiffness of the left shoulder. 
His preoperative x-ray is shown below.

He was able to return to full activities after a left shoulder ream and run. His x-ray at 10 years after his left ream and run is shown below.

Comment: These post operative x-rays show excellent glenoid bone density without evidence of erosion at 10 years  post op.

Here are some videos that are of shoulder interest
Shoulder arthritis - what you need to know (see this link).
How to x-ray the shoulder (see this link).
The total shoulder arthroplasty (see this link).
The ream and run technique is shown in this link.
The cuff tear arthropathy arthroplasty (see this link).
The reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (see this link).
The smooth and move procedure for irreparable rotator cuff tears (see this link).
Shoulder rehabilitation exercises (see this link).




Thursday, January 14, 2021

Progression of arthritic glenoid bone loss as shown by the axillary "truth" view.

Natural history of glenoid bone loss in primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis: how does bone loss progress over a decade?

These authors sought to determine how glenohumeral subluxation and glenoid bone loss changed over time in 48 shoulders that underwent arthroplasty and had been evaluated with standardized high-quality axillary radiographs 



at 1 or more time points over the 5-15 years before arthroplasty. The mean interval time between the oldest and most recent radiographs was 8.9 years (range 5-15 years). 

Below is an example of how glenoid morphology progressed over roughly an 8-year period of time from an A1 glenoid to a B3 glenoid. Note the standardization of the axillary "truth" views that enabled comparisons of the glenohumeral pathoanatomy over time. The patient was a 43-year-old male (body mass index 26.6) at initial presentation for symptomatic right shoulder osteoarthritis and went onto an anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty. From presentation to year 5, the glenoid morphology remained A1 with 3 intervening radiographs documented. At year 6, the patient was noted to have a B1 glenoid (top right), a B2 glenoid at year 7 (bottom left), and a B3 glenoid at year 8 before proceeding with surgery (bottom right).




On each axillary view, the glenoid type



and the degree of posterior humeral decentering on the face of the glenoid


were documented.


Glenoid morphology on the earliest radiograph was classified as A1 in 22, A2 in 13, B1 in 1, B2 in 9, B3 in 1, and D in 2 shoulders. 


Walch A patterns identified on early radiographs most commonly maintained an A pattern over time, but 20% developed eccentric wear with 5 of 35 becoming B type and 2 of 35 becoming a D type before arthroplasty. 








All B-type glenoids remained B type. 




Classic progression of bone loss along the same concentric or eccentric ‘‘track’’ occurred 41% of the time, with , the only B1 glenoid becoming a B2 glenoid, and 56% (5/9) of B2 glenoids becoming B3 glenoids before arthroplasty. 


Only 15% (2/13) of A2 glenoids developed eccentric wear compared with 32% (7/22) of A1 glenoids.


Comment: This study demonstrates that glenohumeral pathoanatomy can be well characterized using the axillary "truth" view without the additional expense and radiation dosage of a CT scan.


This study also demonstrates that the description of glenoid pathoanatomy cannot be constrained to discrete static types, but rather the amount of bone loss, change in version, and humeral decentering each exist on a continuum from "none" to "a lot" with progressive transitions from one type to another.


Finally, in considering the case example provided, it seems that a standard approach to anatomic arthroplasty would have served the patient in each of the 4 different stages of his disease.


===

Our approach to total shoulder arthroplasty can be viewed by clicking here.


To support our research to improve outcomes for patients with shoulder problems, click here.
To subscribe to this blog, enter your email in the box to your right that looks like the below



===
How you can support research in shoulder surgery Click on this link.

We have a new set of shoulder youtubes about the shoulder, check them out at this link.

Be sure to visit "Ream and Run - the state of the art" regarding this radically conservative approach to shoulder arthritis at this link and this link

Use the "Search" box to the right to find other topics of interest to you.

You may be interested in some of our most visited web pages  arthritis, total shoulder, ream and runreverse total shoulderCTA arthroplasty, and rotator cuff surgery as well as the 'ream and run essentials'


Thursday, July 23, 2015

Shoulder arthritis in the young - biological resurfacing has a high failure rate

Unacceptable failure of hemiarthroplasty combined with biological glenoid resurfacing in the treatment of glenohumeral arthritis in the young

These authors used GraftJacket for glenoid resurfacing combined with humeral resurfacing or a stemmed hemiarthroplasty in 6 patients with a mean age of 47 years (34-57 years). Before GraftJacket was available, they treated 5 patients with a meniscal allograft and 6 with capsular interposition arthroplasty.

At a mean of 16 months (9-22 months) after the GraftJacket was implanted, 5 of the 6 patients were revised to a total shoulder arthroplasty or a reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. The sixth patient was dissatisfied but declined further surgery. The mean relative, preoperative Constant score decreased from 35% (range, 13%-61%) to 31% (range, 15%-43%) at revision or latest follow-up.

Of the 5 patients with meniscal allograft, 3 underwent revision at a mean of 22 months (range, 12-40 months), and 4 of the 6 patients with capsular interposition were revised at a mean of 34 months (range, 23-45 months). The mean relative Constant scores preoperatively and at revision or latest follow-up were 44% (range, 19%-68%) and 58% (range, 9%-96%) for the meniscal allograft patients and 47% (range, 38%-62%) and 63% (range, 32%-92%) for the capsular interposition cases.

Interestingly, only 3 of these patients had B2 glenoids.

Comment: We have previously documented that shoulder arthritis in young individuals is challenging for three reasons: (1) more complex pathology (AVN, chondrolysis, post-surgical arthritis, post-traumatic arthritis, etc), (2) greater patient expectations, and (3) greater longevity of the patient.  Almost all of these patients were under 50 years of age. 13 had dislocation arthropathy, one had static posterior subluxation, one had post traumatic AVN, 13 had a history of instability. Many had had prior surgery for instability. Their Table II shows that many of these surgeries were big: bone block procedures, Latarjet procedures, glenoid osteotomies, and humeral rotational osteotomies!

Understandably surgeons are searching for approaches to shoulder arthroplasty that are more durable than a total shoulder with its recognized rate of glenoid component failure and its obligatory sacrifice of glenoid bone stock. To whit, a quote from these authors "glenoid component loosening has remained a major concern and accounts for 32% of the complications after TSA, occurring in up to
44% of patients and leading to revision in at least 0.8% of TSAs per year."
The concept of interposing a human dermal collagen allograft, allograft meniscus or capsule in between the humeral head and the glenoid reminds us of a mortar and pestle

The interposed tissue cannot be expected to hold up against a pestle applying a force of approximately one times body weight.

In recognizing the high failure rate of interposition on one hand and the high failure rate of polyethylene glenoid components in young patients on the other , the authors (somewhat strangely) state "New alternative techniques with the potential to preserve the original glenoid bone stock, such as osteochondral glenoid allograft".  It is not clear that a glenoid allograft preserves original glenoid bone stock.

In our practice we continue to manage patients with the conditions described in this article using the ream and run procedure, in that the ream and run is free of the risks of biological interposition or a plastic glenoid and in that it preserves glenoid and humeral bone stock. The results of this procedure in a large series are well documented - see this link.


====

Use the "Search" box to the right to find other topics of interest to you.


You may be interested in some of our most visited web pages including:shoulder arthritis, total shoulder, ream and runreverse total shoulderCTA arthroplasty, and rotator cuff surgery as well as the 'ream and run essentials'

See from which cities our patients come.

See the countries from which our readers come on this post.


Monday, January 19, 2015

Rapidly destructive glenohumeral arthritis


Rapidly destructive arthrosis of the shoulder joints: radiographic, magnetic resonance imaging, and histopathologic findings.

These authors present 9 women (mean age of 72 years (range, 63-85 years)) having shoulder arthroplasty that demonstrated a pattern of rapid collapse of the humeral head over 6 months from symptom onset as seen on plain radiography and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) within 12 months from symptom onset. These patients had no history of  trauma, rheumatoid arthritis, steroid intake, neurologic osteoarthropathy, osteonecrosis, renal osteoarthropathy, or gout.

All patients showed a unique pattern of humeral head flattening, which appeared like a clean surgical cut with bone debris around the humeral head. MRI findings revealed significant joint effusion and bone marrow edema in the humeral head, without involvement of the glenoid. Pathologic findings showed both fragmentation and regeneration of bone matrix. Seven of the shoulders had large rotator cuff tears.

Comment: This description is interesting. This condition seems to have some features that resemble cuff tear arthropathy, others that resemble osteopenic fatigue fracture, and others suggesting avascular necrosis, while not being absolutely characteristic of any of these. We having a pending case in a 70 year old woman not exactly like those in this report, but similar in that over 8 months, without any evidence of infection or other underlying cause progressed from this characteristic picture of cuff tear arthropathy
 to this picture of destruction involving (in contrast to those in the report) the glenoid as well as the humeral articular surface.

The bottom line may be that there are many variations on the theme of glenohumeral arthritis, each requiring an individualized approach.

===



To see the topics covered in this Blog, click here

Use the "Search" box to the right to find other topics of interest to you.

You may be interested in some of our most visited web pages including:shoulder arthritis, total shoulder, ream and runreverse total shoulderCTA arthroplasty, and rotator cuff surgery as well as the 'ream and run essentials'

Thursday, November 13, 2014

Shoulder arthritis, why not just clean it up with an arthroscope?

Arthroscopic Debridement and Capsular Release for the Treatment of Shoulder Osteoarthritis

These authors performed a retrospective review of 33 patients having arthroscopic debridement and capsular release for shoulder osteoarthritis.

Their technique included debridement of loose cartilage, frayed labrum, and other degenerative tissues as well as complete release of the rotator interval, middle, and inferior glenohumeral ligaments.

A patient-directed home exercise program was initiated immediately for stretching and range of motion therapy.

While there appeared to be an initial improvement in range of motion and pain scores, patients returned to preoperative status 4 months after debridement and capsular release. Twenty patients (61%) reported dissatisfaction with the outcome of the procedure. Over 40% of the shoulders had total shoulders at an average of 9 months.



Comment: This information is useful. We often find patient's asking, 'can't you just clean up my shoulder arthritis without a joint replacement?' It is a good question and comes to the complexity of glenohumeral degenerative joint disease, which, as the picture below suggests, may include loss of cartilage, loss of the roundness of the joint surfaces, bone spurs (osteophytes), instability, capsular tightness, and muscle imbalance - features that are difficult to manage without arthroplasty.
===
Consultation for those who live a distance away from Seattle.

Click here to see the new Shoulder Arthritis Book

Click here to see the new Rotator Cuff Book

To see the topics covered in this Blog, click here

Use the "Search" box to the right to find other topics of interest to you.

You may be interested in some of our most visited web pages including:shoulder arthritis, total shoulder, ream and runreverse total shoulderCTA arthroplasty, and rotator cuff surgery as well as the 'ream and run essentials'

Monday, September 29, 2014

Shoulder Arthritis: The Cliff Notes for Physical Therapists and Other People


Glenohumeral Arthritis

The Cliff Notes for Physical Therapists and Other People

For the complete Shoulder Arthritis Book, click here.

I. Anatomy and mechanics – the glenohumeral joint represents a wonderful balance of mobility and stability. The socket is very shallow so that the humeral head is stabilized by concavity compression in which the cuff muscles press the ball into the socket. In the normal shoulder about 2/3rds of the motion is at the glenohumeral joint and 1/3 at the scapulothoracic joint. We are humbled by the challenge of trying to ‘fix’ this complex joint when it goes awry.

II. Definition – glenohumeral arthritis is a condition in which the articular cartilage normally covering the humeral head and glenoid is compromised. There are different types of shoulder arthritis. Usually it is not an inflammatory condition – such as rheumatoid arthritis - as the ‘-itis’ implies, but rather a degenerative, post traumatic or post surgical condition. Other diagnoses often lumped in with glenohumeral arthritis include avascular necrosis, cuff tear arthropathy, post-septic arthritis and chondrolysis from the intra-articular infusion of local anesthetics. Glenohumeral arthritis needs to be distinguished from two other common diagnoses, frozen shoulder and rotator cuff tear.

III. Presentation - glenohumeral arthritis causes loss of comfort and function of the shoulder. A practical way to assess the functional loss of an arthritic glenohumeral joint is with the Simple Shoulder Test (SST) . The SST is a valuable tool and the patient’s responses should be recorded at each visit to the therapist.

Summarizing the SST responses for over three thousand patients presenting for shoulder arthroplasty, we find the following percentages of patients able to perform each of the functions.




IV. Diagnosis – the diagnosis of glenohumeral arthritis requires a good history, examination of the active and passive ranges of motion and proper standardized x-rays. The history should elicit past trauma, prior treatment, prior shoulder surgery, systemic disease, medications (such as steroids), and involvement of other joints. The range of active and passive abduction, flexion, cross body adduction, reach up the back, external rotation at the side, and internal rotation of the abducted arm are usually diminished in glenohumeral arthritis. In performing these examinations, it is important to determine how much of the motion is humeroscapular and how much of the motion is scapulothoracic. The technique for taking the key x-rays for documenting the presence of arthritis is shown here. Here are examples of an AP view and an axillary view showing a normal joint space and the absence of bone spurs.



By contrast, an osteoarthritic glenohumeral joint often shows osteophytes, loose bodies, glenoid retroversion, glenoid biconcavity, and posterior subluxation of the humeral head on the glenoid as shown here.




See also this post that shows the x-ray characteristics of the different types of glenohumeral arthritis. One of the most difficult diagnoses to manage is chondrolysis resulting from the intra-articular infusion of local anesthetics with a pain pump. This condition is devastating because it occurs in young individuals having instability surgery, because it can completely destroy the articular cartilage, and because it is usually accompanied by soft tissue disease that results in pain and stiffness, even after joint replacement. Other challenging diagnoses are post-traumatic or post-surgical arthritis – both of which can distort the local anatomy requiring special modifications of the standard procedure that would be used for straightforward osteoarthritis. Shoulder arthroplasty for rheumatoid arthritis may be complicated by the soft bone, the fragile rotator cuff, severe bone erosion, and shoulder tightness.

V. Progression – glenohumeral osteoarthritis (the most common form in the U.S.) usually starts subtly with only minor symptoms at night or during certain activities. It then progresses at a highly variable rate – sometimes not changing from year to year, sometimes with a sudden worsening and sometimes with an up and down course over the seasons or years. On occasion the x-rays may appear much worse than the symptoms. “End stage” arthritis can leave the glenohumeral joint without any range of motion.

VI. Evaluation – as William Osler said, ‘it is as important to know what patient the disease has than what disease the patient has’. We are on the lookout for the 3 “D”s, diseases, depression, and dependency on nicotine, narcotics or alcohol, which can compromise the patient’s ability to respond to non-operative or operative management. The best prognostic factors are a healthy patient with a positive attitude and good social support. Patient selection is the principal key to successful surgery.

VII. Non-operative management – because surgery for glenohumeral arthritis is elective, patients have plenty of time to try to optimize their comfort and function with non-operative management. We focus on three areas of patient self-management: (1) avoidance of impact and heavy compressive loading, (2) range of motion – (exercises A,B,C,E,F,G and L on this post). and (3) traction exercises. We do not use glucosamine, chondroitin, cortisone injections, hyaluronic acid injections, ultrasound, or muscle stimulation. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medications may be useful, but caution is exerted to avoid cardiac, renal, liver, gastric and hematological complications. See also this post on non surgical management..

VIII. Surgical options – the different surgical procedures for glenohumeral arthritis are discussed in detail here. The first consideration is whether it is appropriate to consider surgical treatment at this time. . Shoulders with bad looking x-rays are not taken to the operating room if the patient doesn’t have substantial functional deficits, if the patient is not a good candidate for surgery for health or social reasons, if the patient does not wish to accept the risks of surgery, or if the surgeon is not comfortable with what needs to be done. The common forms of arthroplasty and the common conditions for which they are performed are listed below and here.

a. Hemiarthroplasty – avascular necrosis when the glenoid is intact

b. Total shoulder arthroplasty – osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, capsulorrhaphy arthropathy, post traumatic arthritis

c. Ream and run - osteoarthritis, capsulorrhaphy arthropathy, posttraumatic arthritis in patients wishing to avoid the risks and limitations associated with a prosthetic polyethylene glenoid component.

d. Cuff tear arthropathy (CTA) arthroplasty – this procedure is used for the arthritic, cuff deficient shoulder that has an intact, stabilizing coracoacromial arch.

e. Reverse total shoulder – rotator cuff tear arthropathy, pseudoparalysis, failed total shoulder arthroplasty with rotator cuff insufficiency. Patients considering this procedure are cautioned about the limited range of motion and function usually achieved with this surgery and also about the increased risk of fracture or fixation failure with falls.

Each of these procedures modifies the arthritic anatomy by removing abutting bone, and inserting smooth prosthetic joint surfaces that enable motion, stability and load transfer. Each procedure involves careful balancing of the capsule and other surrounding soft tissues. The procedure may include a biceps tenotomy or tenodesis if the long head tendon of the biceps is frayed or unstable.

The use of these different surgical options varies widely among different surgeons. This variation in use confounds the development of appropriateness criteria and the evaluation of outcomes. For example, surgeons who use the reverse total shoulder for milder disease will have better results than those who use it primarily after a salvage procedure after more conservative procedures have failed or when there is no other option.

IX. Postoperative care – the rehabilitation program after surgery depends on the details of the surgery performed, the specific findings at surgery, and the patient. In our practice we try to standardize and simplify the postoperative program for almost all arthroplasties. We use continuous passive motion while the patient is in the hospital and start assisted elevation the evening of surgery. Our goal is to have the patient be able to perform assisted elevation to at least 150 degrees by the time of discharge on the second postoperative day. Forward elevation stretches are done 5 times a day with a 2 minute hold. We do not work on external rotation range until after six weeks, allowing for solid healing of the subscapularis repair and then we only have the patient do very gentle stretching At six weeks we often add all of the exercises shown here. Gentle progressive strengthening is progressed from there, make sure that any exercise can be repeated at least 20 times. This program is modified if there are concerns about instability or the quality of the repairs. If the shoulder is stiff at six weeks, we consider a closed manipulation. After a reverse total shoulder we immobilize the arm in a sling for six weeks and then allow the patient to progress with gentle activities of daily living.

X. Complications – surgery for glenohumeral arthritis may yield unsatisfactory results or be associated with complications as shown here. These complications may include persistent pain, nerve injury, cuff or subscapularis failure, stiffness, instability, fracture, component loosening and infection.

XI. Expected outcomes – the results of glenohumeral arthroplasty are determined by the characteristics of (1) the shoulder problem, (2) the patient, (3) the procedure and (4) the team providing the care. We refer to these as the 4P s. We let patients know we cannot guarantee a specified result, but we do assure them of our best efforts to improve their shoulder’s comfort and function.

XII. The future – much hope has been placed on ‘biological resurfacing’ with interpositional grafts of cadaver meniscus or artificial materials. These however have get to yield durable results, probably because of the mortar and pestle action of the humeral head and glenoid on the interposed material. While ‘tissue-engineering’ sounds attractive, attempts to grow cartilage and implant it in a human joint have been frustrated. The most promising regenerative procedure in our view is the ream and run procedure in which the healing response of concentrically reamed glenoid bone is molded by a smooth, round humeral head prosthesis. This procedure appears to enable the glenoid to cover itself with fibrocartilage bonded to the underlying bone.

XIII. Role of the therapist – in a word, essential. Ideally the patient and therapist get to know each other before surgery, sharing the program and the plan for ongoing communication. In the hospital the therapist starts the rehab program and assures the patient is ‘on top of it’ before discharge. After discharge the therapist is available on an ongoing basis for answering questions, measuring progress, and alerting the surgeon to any deviations from the expected recovery.

Thursday, January 9, 2014

Shoulder arthritis from suture anchors and screws; Latarjet

One of our first articles about the shoulder, published in 1984 concerned complications of hardware around the shoulder.  We observed that "Screws and staples are used frequently in the surgical treatment of glenohumeral joint problems. We analyzed a series of thirty-seven patients with complications related to the use of these implants. Twenty-one patients had problems related to the use of screws for affixing a transferred coracoid process to the glenoid. Sixteen patients had problems related to the use of staples: ten had undergone capsulorrhaphy, four had had advancement of the subscapularis, and two had had repair of a rotator cuff tear. The complaints at examination were shoulder pain (thirty-six patients), decreased glenohumeral motion (nineteen patients), crepitus with glenohumeral motion (sixteen patients), and radiating paresthesias (four patients). The time between placement of the implant and the onset of symptoms ranged from four weeks to ten years. The screws or staples had been incorrectly placed in ten patients, had migrated or loosened in twenty-four, and had fractured in three. Thirty-four patients required a second surgical procedure specifically for removal of the implant. At operation fourteen patients (41 per cent) were noted to have sustained a significant injury to the articular surface of the glenoid or humerus. The results in this group of patients indicated that screws and staples can produce complications that require reoperation and are capable of causing a permanent loss of joint function. Adequate surgical exposure and careful placement of the implant appear to be essential when these devices are used about the glenohumeral joint."

Here's yet another example of 'anchor arthropathy', which is the modern version of what we discussed 30 years ago. These films are of the right shoulder of a young person having had surgery for shoulder instability. After surgery the shoulder became stiff and painful and did not respond to exercises.
The severe anchor arthritis is apparent.



The individual is scheduled for a ream and run.



Here's another: two days ago we did a ream and run on a young active person with pain and stiffness after a Latarjet. The x-rays show where the screw and bone had been rubbing on the humerus.


At surgery the prominent screw head was seen to be rubbing on the humeral head 


and the bone graft rubbing on the medial humeral cortex.

"Adequate surgical exposure and careful placement of the implant appear to be essential when these devices are used about the glenohumeral joint."

More here.

==

Consultation for those who live a distance away from Seattle.

**Check out the new Shoulder Arthritis Book - click here.**

Click here to see the new Rotator Cuff Book

To see the topics covered in this Blog, click here
Use the "Search" box to the right to find other topics of interest to you.

You may be interested in some of our most visited web pages including:shoulder arthritis, total shoulder, ream and runreverse total shoulderCTA arthroplasty, and rotator cuff surgery as well as the 'ream and run essentials'

See from which cities our patients come.

See the countries from which our readers come on this post.