Injuries to the acromioclavicular joint are common but underdiagnosed. Sprains and minor subluxations are best managed conservatively, but there is debate concerning the treatment of complete dislocations and the more complex combined injuries in which other elements of the shoulder girdle are damaged. Confusion has been caused by existing systems for classification of these injuries, the plethora of available operative techniques and the lack of well-designed clinical trials comparing alternative methods of management. Recent advances in arthroscopic surgery have produced an even greater variety of surgical options for which, as yet, there are no objective data on outcome of high quality. We review the current concepts of the treatment of these injuries.
We reviewed 39 patients with displaced three- and four-part fractures of the humerus. In 21 patients (group A) we had used an anatomical prosthesis for the humeral head and in 18 (group B) an implant designed for fractures.
When followed up at a mean of 29.3 months after surgery the overall Constant score was 51.9 points; in group A it was 51.5 and in group B 52.4 points. The subjective satisfaction of the patients was assessed using a numerical rating scale and was similar in both groups. In group A complete healing of the tuberosities was found in 29% and 50% in group B. Partial integration was seen in 29% of group A and in only one patient in group B, while resorption was noted in 43% of group A and 44% of group B. The functional outcome was significantly better in patients with complete or partial healing of the tuberosities (p = 0.022). The specific trauma prosthesis did not lead to better healing of the tuberosities. The difference in clinical outcome obtained by the two designs did not reach statistical significance.
We have undertaken a prospective clinical and radiological analysis of 124 shoulder arthroplasties (113 patients) carried out for osteoarthritis. The clinical results showed improvement in the absolute Constant score and the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score of 22 and 43, respectively. Both were statistically significant (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the scores after hemiarthroplasty and total arthroplasty in those patients with an intact rotator cuff.
When revision was used as the end-point for survival at ten years, survival of 86%, or 90% if glenoid components made of Hylamer sterilised in air were omitted, was obtained in primary osteoarthritis. The most common cause for revision in the hemiarthroplasty group was glenoid pain at a mean of 1.5 years; in the total arthroplasty group it was loosening of the glenoid at a mean of 4.5 years. Analysis of pre-operative factors showed that the risk of gross loosening of the glenoid increased threefold when there was evidence of erosion of the glenoid at operation. Shoulder arthroplasty should not be delayed once symptomatic osteoarthritis has been established and should be undertaken before failure of the cuff or erosion of the glenoid are present.
Our aim was to correlate the health status with objective and radiological outcomes in patients treated by open reduction and internal fixation for fractures of both bones of the forearm.
We assessed 23 patients (24 fractures) subjectively, objectively and radiologically at a mean of 34 months (11 to 72). Subjective assessment used the disability of the arm, shoulder and hand (DASH) and musculoskeletal functional attachment (MFA) questionnaires. The range of movement of the forearm and wrist, grip and pinch strength were measured objectively and standardised radiographs were evaluated.
In general, patients reported good overall function based on the DASH (mean 12; range 0 to 42) and MFA (mean 19; range 0 to 51) scores. However, pronation and grip and pinch strength were significantly decreased (p < 0.005). These deficiencies correlated with poorer subjective outcomes.
Operative stabilisation of fractures of the radius and ulna led to a reliably acceptable functional outcome. However, despite these generally satisfactory results, the outcome scores worsened with reduction in the range of movement of the forearm and wrist.
Strains applied to bone can stimulate its development and adaptation. High strains and rates of strain are thought to be osteogenic, but the specific dose response relationship is not known.