Aims. Proximal humeral fractures are the third most common fracture among the elderly. Complications associated with fixation include screw perforation, varus collapse, and avascular necrosis of the humeral head. To address these challenges, various augmentation techniques to increase medial column support have been developed. There are currently no recent studies that definitively establish the superiority of augmented fixation over non-augmented implants in the surgical treatment of proximal humeral fractures. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the outcomes of patients who underwent locking-plate fixation with cement augmentation or bone-graft augmentation versus those who underwent locking-plate fixation without augmentation for proximal humeral fractures. Methods. The search was carried out according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. Articles involving patients with complex proximal humeral fractures treated using open reduction with locking-plate fixation, with or without augmentation, were considered. A meta-analysis of comparative studies comparing locking-plate fixation with cement augmentation or with bone-graft augmentation versus locking-plate fixation without augmentation was performed. Results. A total of 19 studies were included in the qualitative synthesis, and six comparative studies were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, 120 patients received locking-plate fixation with bone-graft augmentation, 179 patients received locking-plate fixation with cement augmentation, and 336 patients received locking-plate fixation without augmentation. No statistically relevant differences between the augmented and non-augmented cohorts were found in terms of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire score and Constant-Murley Score. The cement-augmented group had a significantly lower rate of complications compared to the non-augmented group. Conclusion. While locking-plate fixation with cement augmentation appears to produce a lower complication rate compared to locking-plate fixation alone, functional outcomes seem comparable between augmented and non-augmented techniques. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(7):646–655

This systematic review examines the current literature regarding surgical techniques for restoring articular cartilage in the hip, from the older microfracture techniques involving perforation to the subchondral bone, to adaptations of this technique using nanofractures and scaffolds. This review discusses the autologous and allograft transfer systems and the autologous matrix-induced chondrogenesis (AMIC) technique, as well as a summary of the previously discussed techniques, which could become common practice for restoring articular cartilage, thus reducing the need for total hip arthroplasty. Using the British Medical Journal Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (BMJ GRADE) system and Grade system. Comparison of the studies discussed shows that microfracture has the greatest quantity and quality of research, whereas the newer AMIC technique requires more research, but shows promise. Cite this article: W. E. Hotham, A. Malviya. A systematic review of surgical methods to restore articular cartilage in the hip. Bone Joint Res 2018;7:336–342. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.75.BJR-2017-0331

Aims

It is important to understand the rate of complications associated with the increasing burden of revision shoulder arthroplasty. Currently, this has not been well quantified. This review aims to address that deficiency with a focus on complication and reoperation rates, shoulder outcome scores, and comparison of anatomical and reverse prostheses when used in revision surgery.