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

Aims. Scapular notching is thought to have an adverse effect on the outcome of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA). However, the matter is still controversial. The aim of this study was to determine the clinical impact of scapular notching on outcomes after RTSA. Methods. Three electronic databases (PubMed, Cochrane Database, and EMBASE) were searched for studies which evaluated the influence of scapular notching on clinical outcome after RTSA. The quality of each study was assessed. Functional outcome scores (the Constant-Murley scores (CMS), and the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) scores), and postoperative range of movement (forward flexion (FF), abduction, and external rotation (ER)) were extracted and subjected to meta-analysis. Effect sizes were expressed as weighted mean differences (WMD). Results. In all, 11 studies (two level III and nine level IV) were included in the meta-analysis. All analyzed variables indicated that scapular notching has a negative effect on the outcome of RTSA . Statistical significance was found for the CMS (WMD –3.11; 95% confidence interval (CI) –4.98 to –1.23), the ASES score (WMD –6.50; 95% CI –10.80 to –2.19), FF (WMD –6.3°; 95% CI –9.9° to –2.6°), and abduction (WMD –9.4°; 95% CI –17.8° to –1.0°), but not for ER (WMD –0.6°; 95% CI –3.7° to 2.5°). Conclusion. The current literature suggests that patients with scapular notching after RTSA have significantly worse results when evaluated by the CMS, ASES score, and range of movement in flexion and abduction. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(11):1438–1445