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.
We report the use of a free vascularised
Transfer of pectoralis major has evolved as the most favoured option for the management of the difficult problem of irreparable tears of subscapularis. We describe our experience with this technique in 30 patients divided into three groups. Group I comprised 11 patients with a failed procedure for instability of the shoulder, group II included eight with a failed shoulder replacement and group III, 11 with a massive tear of the rotator cuff. All underwent transfer of the sternal head of pectoralis major to restore the function of subscapularis. At the latest follow-up pain had improved in seven of the 11 patients in groups I and III, but in only one of eight in group II. The subjective shoulder score improved in seven patients in group I, in one in group II and in six in group III. The mean Constant score improved from 40.9 points (28 to 50) in group I, 32.9 (17 to 47) in group II and 28.7 (20 to 42) in group III pre-operatively to 60.8 (28 to 89), 41.9 (24 to 73) and 52.3 (24 to 78), respectively. Failure of the tendon transfer was highest in group II and was associated with pre-operative anterior subluxation of the humeral head. We conclude that in patients with irreparable rupture of subscapularis after shoulder replacement there is a high risk of failure of transfer of p?ctoralis major, particularly if there is pre-operative anterior subluxation of the humeral head.
We retrospectively compared wrist arthrodesis using the Mannerfelt technique in 19 or an AO-plate in 23 patients with long-standing rheumatoid arthritis. The mean follow-up was for 76 months. Compared with the Mannerfelt fusion group, patients in the AO-plate group reported greater satisfaction with their wrist function (74% Both methods relieve pain and improve function. Overall, the activities of daily living scores and the patients’ subjective assessment of outcome tended to be higher in the AO-plate group than in the Mannerfelt fusion group, although the difference was not statistically significant. Similarly, although more postoperative complications occurred in the AO-plate group, the difference between the two groups was not statistically significant.