The sternoclavicular joint is vulnerable to the same disease processes as other synovial joints, the most common of which are instability from injury, osteoarthritis, infection and rheumatoid disease. Patients may also present with other conditions, which are unique to the joint, or are manifestations of a systemic disease process. The surgeon should be aware of these possibilities when assessing a patient with a painful, swollen sternoclavicular joint.
There are few reports in the literature of the diagnosis and treatment of the infected shoulder arthroplasty. Most deal with resection arthroplasty and two-stage exchange surgery. We present our results of one-stage exchange operation as treatment for the infected shoulder arthroplasty. Our group comprised 16 patients (ten men, six women) with 16 infected arthroplasties. By the time of follow-up, two patients had died (mean 5.8 years), two could not be located and three had already undergone revision surgery. Nine patients were thus available for clinical examination and assessment. The infections were largely caused by staphylococci, Further revision was performed in three patients. One sustained a peri-prosthetic humeral fracture, another developed an acromial pseudarthrosis after transacromial surgery and the third suffered recurrent dislocations. No patient had a recurrence of infection. A one-stage exchange procedure using antibiotic-loaded bone cement eradicated infection in all our patients and we suggest that such a procedure is at least as successful as either a resection arthroplasty or a two-stage exchange in the management of the infected shoulder arthroplasty.
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.
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.
