The sternoclavicular joint (SCJ) is a pivotal
articulation in the linked system of the upper limb girdle, providing
load-bearing in compression while resisting displacement in tension
or distraction at the manubrium sterni. The SCJ and acromioclavicular
joint (ACJ) both have a small surface area of contact protected
by an intra-articular fibrocartilaginous disc and are supported
by strong extrinsic and intrinsic capsular ligaments. The function
of load-sharing in the upper limb by bulky periscapular and thoracobrachial
muscles is extremely important to the longevity of both joints.
Ligamentous and capsular laxity changes with age, exposing both
joints to greater strain, which may explain the rising incidence
of arthritis in both with age. The incidence of arthritis in the
SCJ is less than that in the ACJ, suggesting that the extrinsic
ligaments of the SCJ provide greater stability than the coracoclavicular
ligaments of the ACJ. Instability of the SCJ is rare and can be difficult to distinguish
from medial clavicular physeal or metaphyseal fracture-separation:
cross-sectional imaging is often required. The distinction is important
because the treatment options and outcomes of treatment are dissimilar,
whereas the treatment and outcomes of ACJ separation and fracture
of the lateral clavicle can be similar. Proper recognition and treatment
of traumatic instability is vital as these injuries may be life-threatening.
Instability of the SCJ does not always require surgical intervention.
An accurate diagnosis is required before surgery can be considered,
and we recommend the use of the Stanmore instability triangle. Most
poor outcomes result from a failure to recognise the underlying
pathology. There is a natural reluctance for orthopaedic surgeons to operate
in this area owing to unfamiliarity with, and the close proximity
of, the related vascular structures, but the interposed sternohyoid
and sternothyroid muscles are rarely injured and provide a clear
boundary to the medial retroclavicular space, as well as an anatomical
barrier to unsafe intervention. This review presents
There is little information about the management
of peri-prosthetic fracture of the humerus after total shoulder replacement
(TSR). This is a retrospective review of 22 patients who underwent
a revision of their original shoulder replacement for peri-prosthetic
fracture of the humerus with bone loss and/or loose components.
There were 20 women and two men with a mean age of 75 years (61
to 90) and a mean follow-up 42 months (12 to 91): 16 of these had
undergone a previous revision TSR. Of the 22 patients, 12 were treated
with a long-stemmed humeral component that bypassed the fracture.
All their fractures united after a mean of 27 weeks (13 to 94).
Eight patients underwent resection of the proximal humerus with
endoprosthetic replacement to the level of the fracture. Two patients
were managed with a clam-shell prosthesis that retained the original
components. The mean Oxford shoulder score (OSS) of the original
TSRs before peri-prosthetic fracture was 33 (14 to 48). The mean
OSS after revision for fracture was 25 (9 to 31). Kaplan-Meier survival
using re-intervention for any reason as the endpoint was 91% (95%
confidence interval (CI) 68 to 98) and 60% (95% CI 30 to 80) at
one and five years, respectively. There were two revisions for dislocation of the humeral head,
one open reduction for modular humeral component dissociation, one
internal fixation for nonunion, one trimming of a prominent screw
and one re-cementation for aseptic loosening complicated by infection,
ultimately requiring excision arthroplasty. Two patients sustained
nerve palsies. Revision TSR after a peri-prosthetic humeral fracture associated
with bone loss and/or loose components is a salvage procedure that
can provide a stable platform for elbow and hand function. Good
rates of union can be achieved using a stem that bypasses the fracture.
There is a high rate of complications and function is not as good as
with the original replacement.
