Periprosthetic Humeral Fractures Research Articles

Comparing the Biomechanical Stability of Cerclage Cable with Plate Insert Versus Locking Screw in Periprosthetic Humeral Fracture.

In the setting of periprosthetic humeral fractures, the humeral stem of the implant represents a substantial challenge to the optimal method of proximal fixation. This study aimed to compare the initial biomechanical stability provided by cerclage cables with a locking plate insert versus bicortical locking screws (i.e., the gold standard for fixation) in fresh cadaveric humeri. After calculating the sample size, we utilized 10 sets of cadaveric specimens and created a 5-mm osteotomy gap 120 mm distal to the tip of the greater tuberosity, simulating a Wright and Cofield type-B periprosthetic humeral fracture on each specimen. Using 3 locking screws for distal fragment fixation, identical in all specimens, the specimens were assigned to Group A (3 cerclage cables with a plate insert) or Group B (3 locking bicortical screws) for proximal fragment fixation. Biomechanical tests included stiffness in varus and valgus bending, torsion, and axial compression, and a single load to failure. No significant differences were observed in the biomechanical metrics between the 2 groups. Our study revealed that fixation with use of cerclage cables with a plate insert demonstrated biomechanical stability comparable with that of bicortical locking screw fixation when addressing the proximal fragment in Wright and Cofield type-B periprosthetic humeral fractures. For proximal fragment fixation of periprosthetic humeral fractures, cerclage cables with a plate insert can be utilized as an effective fixation method that offers initial fixation strength that is comparable to the use of 3 locking bicortical screws.

The Treatment of Periprosthetic Fracture Revision of the Humerus with “Bamboo Support” Structural Allograft Technique—Atrophic Non-Union of a Post-Operative Periprosthetic Fracture after Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Case Report

Periprosthetic fractures are a serious complication of joint replacement surgery. With the growing prevalence of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA), the incidence of relatively uncommon periprosthetic humeral fractures has increased. Here, we present the unique case of a 74-year-old woman who developed atrophic non-union after plate osteosynthesis for a periprosthetic fracture associated with RTSA. Fixation failure was evident 3 months after the surgical intervention; the patient underwent a 3-month course of arm sling immobilization. However, bone resorption continued, and varus angulation of the fracture developed. In this case, surgical strategy involved the use of long proximal humerus internal locked system plate (DePuy Synthes, Paoli, PA, USA), augmented with autologous iliac bone graft and allogenic humerus structural bone graft with the “bamboo support technique”, fixed with Cable System (DePuy Synthes, Paoli, PA, USA). No reports have addressed the management of failed periprosthetic fractures using allogeneic humeral strut bone grafts. This report aims to fill the gap by presenting a novel surgical technique for the management of periprosthetic fractures associated with RTSA in case of treatment failure.

Cementless reverse total shoulder arthroplasty implantation with humeral matchstick autograft augmentation: early radiographic outcomes

IntroductionHumeral-sided complications account for up to 21% of all revision Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty (RTSA) surgeries.1 Stress shielding with large bulky stems can lead to proximal bone resorption per Wolff’s law, complicating further surgeries.14,28 Previously published studies suggest that lowering the metaphyseal implant fill ratio can lead to fewer adaptive radiographic changes and decreased bone resorption.25,26,29 Inspired by these studies, cementless primary RTSA implantation technique with humeral matchstick autografts was proposed to augment cementless humeral constructs, foster the use of a smaller size stem, and create primary stability of the humeral implant even in osteoporotic or in-between size medullary canals. In this study, retrospective review of this cementless RTSA technique with short term radiographic evaluation was performed. MethodsForty-six nonconsecutive patients underwent primary RTSA with a short-stem cementless prosthesis (Stryker Ascend Flex, Kalamazoo, MI, USA) augmented by matchstick bone grafting from January to July 2020. Patient demographics were recorded, and follow-up x-rays were retrospectively reviewed to assess metaphyseal fill ratios and incidence of stress shielding at minimum 1-year follow-up. Discrepancies between templated and final stem sizes were recorded, along with all intraoperative and postoperative complications. ResultsOf the 46 patients originally identified, there were 5 men and 41 women with a mean age of 71 years (SD ± 7, range 53-88). Mean templated stem size was 4 (SD ± 2, range 1-8), while mean final implant size was 2 (SD ± 1, Range 1-3). Mean fill ratios were 0.76 (SD ± 0.06, range 0.54-0.89) along the metaphysis and 0.67 (SD ± 0.09, range 0.49-0.83) along the diaphysis. There were no intraoperative humeral fractures from implantation. All patients were available for radiographic follow-up with a mean of 19 months (SD ± 8, range 12-40). There were three cases (7%) of proximal humeral stress shielding, with average fill ratios of 0.857 and 0.807 in the metaphysis and diaphysis, respectively. There were 3 patients (7%) who underwent revision surgeries for baseplate failure and periprosthetic humeral fracture. There were no cases of early humeral loosening. DiscussionMatchstick autograft humeral augmentation is a simple, promising surgical technique with low intraoperative complication rates and good short-term radiographic outcomes. When the implant fill ratio is successfully reduced, there is possible lower risk of humeral stress shielding. The authors believe this technique can help maximize implant stability in cementless shoulder arthroplasty and preserve humeral bone stock for future revision surgeries.

Open Reduction and Internal Fixation of a Diaphyseal Periprosthetic Humeral Fracture

Dr. Weaver treats a periprosthetic humeral spiral fracture using contoured plating. The posterolateral approach helps prevent dissection of the triceps for adequate exposure of the fracture.

Evaluation and treatment of postoperative periprosthetic humeral fragility fractures

Postoperative periprosthetic humeral shaft fractures represent a growing and difficult complication to treat given the aging patient population and associated bone loss. Determining the best treatment option is multifactorial, including patient characteristics, fracture pattern, remaining bone stock, and implant stability. Possible treatment options include nonoperative management with bracing or surgical intervention. Nonoperative treatment has been shown to have higher nonunion rates, thus should only be selected for a specific patient population with minimally displaced fractures or those that are unfit for surgery. Surgical management is recommended with prosthetic loosening, fracture nonunion, or failure of nonoperative treatment. Surgical options include open reduction and internal fixation, revision arthroplasty, or hybrid fixation. Careful evaluation, decision making, and planning is required in the treatment of these fractures.

Nail-stem construct method for periprosthetic humeral fractures with recalcitrant nonunion after total elbow arthroplasty: A surgical technique.

The objective of this study was to describe the surgical technique using an innovative nail-stem construct in treatment of periprosthetic humeral fractures with recalcitrant nonunion after total elbow arthroplasty (TEA). Patients diagnosed with humeral recalcitrant nonunion in periprosthetic fractures and stem loosening after TEA were retrospectively recruited between 2018 and 2019. The demographic data and related clinical outcomes were recorded. We use a cutting length of the nail pushing into the humeral canal and then pull back distally to dock the tip of the humeral stem. The cement was packed into the humeral canal, and the periprosthetic bone defect was impacting with harvested allograft chip. Patient age, gender, lesion site, number of previous surgeries, and the time period from the primary TEA to the nail-stem reconstruction were allocated. Moreover, the range of motion, degree of elbow stability, and level of pain were evaluated for each patient following this procedure. All the four patients achieved an optimal range of motion and secure stability with painless elbow at final follow-up. Our proposed nail-stem construct with double allogenous bone plate is a feasible alternative for revisional TEA in patients with implant loosening, periprosthetic humeral fractures, and recalcitrant nonunion.

Periprosthetic Postoperative Humeral Fractures After Shoulder Arthroplasty.

The increased utilization of shoulder arthroplasty, including revision procedures, combined with rises in life expectancy, is expected to translate into a substantial increase in periprosthetic humeral fractures. The evaluation and management of these fractures needs to be updated to consider fractures that complicate anatomic and reverse arthroplasties and contemporary short-stem and stemless implants. Although conservative treatment is successful in a large proportion of these fractures, several surgical reconstructive techniques are required for the management of all fracture types. Surgical options include internal fixation, graft augmentation, standard revision procedures, and occasionally complex reconstructions including modular segmental prosthesis and allograft prosthetic composites. Most studies on the outcomes of periprosthetic humeral fractures have analyzed small samples and have typically reported on anatomic total shoulders with a standard-length humeral implant. Additional research is required to optimize the management of periprosthetic postoperative humeral fractures in the era of reverse arthroplasty, short stems, and stemless arthroplasty.

Is the Posterior Approach With Posterior locking compression plate and Anterior Allograft Useful and Safe in the Treatment of Periprosthetic Humeral Fractures Following Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty?

IntroductionAs the reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) surgery has dramatically increased in the last few decades, many complications have followed through. The periprosthetic fracture, at the moment, is still a subject of debate in the orthopedic world. In this monocentric study, along with a literature review of periprosthetic humeral fractures, we would present our institutional experience with the treatment of periprosthetic humeral fractures with a posterior humeral approach, posterior cortex plate fixation, anterior strut allograft, screws, and cerclage wires.Materials and MethodsOur study consisted in a prospective monocentric study based on 18 patients, with a mean age of 75.3 years (range 64–88), all following a reverse shoulder total arthroplasty (RTSA). Postoperative follow-ups were taken at 1, 6, and 12 months with objective measurement of shoulder motion and strength, while clinical outcome measures were assessed using the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES score) and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain. Together with that, we performed a literature review focused on the management of periprosthetic humeral fractures after shoulder arthroplasty.ResultsAll fractures consolidated without complication at a mean 4.2 months (range 3–6). At final follow-up, the average active shoulder flexion was 88° (range 62–129°), active abduction 73° (range 52–91°) and active external rotation 22° (range 3–56°). The average ASES score was 73 (range 59–97), while average VAS score was 1.1 (range 0–3).DiscussionSurgical treatment of periprosthetic humeral fractures following a shoulder arthroplasty remains a hard challenge for every surgeon, and their treatment must consider fracture’s location, displacement, and local bone quality.ConclusionsThe posterior approach with a posterior plate placement and anterior strut allograft, which is appliable only in case of a B or C type fracture according to Worland classification, could be a good treatment option for periprosthetic humeral fractures.

Surgical treatments of patients with periprosthetic humeral fracture and comorbidities

Background: Periprosthetic humeral fractures represent a complex and rare complication. Currently, there is no standardized procedure for management or classification of these fractures. Questions/purposes: This unique case series purpose was to look at surgical outcomes and comorbidity profiles of 10 PHF patients. Subsequent analysis looked at whether these outcomes could add to the discussion of a proposed standard of care in a patient cohort with significant comorbidities. Patients and methods: All patients with humeral fractures from 2008-2019 were analyzed for inclusion. A total of ten patients met the inclusion criteria; humeral fracture concurrent with a shoulder arthroplasty. Each patient was managed surgically using a locking plate with or without cerclage wiring. Outcome analysis was then performed for each patient. Humoral fractures managed conservatively were removed from the dataset along with periprosthetic fractures around an elbow arthroplasty, IM nail, or supracondylar fracture after shoulder arthroplasty. Results: The average union time in all patients was 13.27±2.90 (9.86-17.29) weeks. There was no significant difference between patients treated with cerclage wiring or without. All patients had successful union except for a patient with Osteogenesis Imperfecta. There were two radial nerve palsies. The average Deyo-Charlson score and BMI was 7.1±.84 (4-13) and 29.89 respectively. Conclusion: The treatment of PHFs using the technique of ORIF with locking plate with or without cerclage wiring provides satisfactory outcomes in a patient population that usually includes significant comorbidities. Level of evidence: Therapeutic Study Level IV Retrospective Review.

Inadvertent, intraoperative, non- to minimally displaced periprosthetic humeral shaft fractures in RTSA do not affect the clinical and radiographic short-term outcome

IntroductionLittle information is available on the clinical and radiographic outcome of intraoperative, non- to minimally displaced humeral fractures that occur during implantation of a stemmed, reverse shoulder prosthesis but are only recognized on routine postoperative radiographs. The goal of this study is to report the clinical and radiographic outcome for this rarely reported fracture type.Materials and methods39 conservatively treated non- to minimally displaced intraoperative periprosthetic humeral fractures after stemmed RTSA were detected from our radiographic database between 1.1.2006 and 31.1.2018. Exclusion criteria were lack of patient consent, preoperative humeral fracture, and revision arthroplasties. Clinical (absolute and relative Constant score, the Subjective Shoulder Value) and radiographic (conventional radiographs) assessment was performed preoperatively, at 6 weeks (only radiographically) and at latest follow-up with a minimum follow-up of 2 years.Results35 patient’s with a mean age of 72 years (range 32–88, SD ± 11 years) and a mean follow-up of 53 months (range 24–124, SD ± 31) were included in the study. At latest follow-up, all clinical outcome parameters except external rotation improved significantly. A complication rate of 17% (n:6) was recorded. At 6 weeks after the index surgery, none of the radiographs showed a fracture displacement or a sintering of the stem. At latest follow-up, all fractures were healed and no stem loosening was observed in any of the shoulders.ConclusionsNon- to minimally displaced intraoperative periprosthetic humeral fractures in RTSA have an incidence of about 5% in this series of mainly uncemented press-fit stems. They generally heal without any further treatment and are not associated with stem loosening or compromise the clinical outcome after primary RTSA. Except slight restriction in the postoperative rehabilitation protocol, no further attention or action is needed.

Original Fixation Technique for Periprosthetic Humeral Fractures: Locking Plate for Lockable Stem

The prevalence of periprosthetic humeral fractures is 0.6% to 3%. These periprosthetic fractures are very challenging to treat because of the risk of complications and reduced function, especially when the humeral implant needs to be changed. The aim of this study was to evaluate the possibility of stabilizing the fracture without removing the existing humeral stem.

Original Fixation Technique for Periprosthetic Humeral Fractures: Locking Plate for Lockable Stem

Introduction: The prevalence of periprosthetic humeral fractures is 0.6% to 3%. These periprosthetic fractures are very challenging to treat because of the risk of complications and reduced function, especially when the humeral implant needs to be changed. The aim of this study was to evaluate the possibility of stabilizing the fracture without removing the existing humeral stem. Materials and Methods: Five patients with a mean age of 82 years (69-99) were analyzed. These patients had suffered a periprosthetic humeral fracture. The shoulder arthroplasty implant was either anatomical or reversed with a locked humeral stem. The fractures (4 Worland type C and 1 type B2) occurred an average of 57.5 months (1-156) after the arthroplasty. Plate fixation was done in all cases through an anterior surgical approach; the screws associated with the plate were inserted through the plate and into the holes in the existing humeral stem. The functional outcomes (Constant score, Quick DASH) and radiological outcomes (bone union, displacement) were evaluated until the fracture healed. Results: Four patients were followed prospectively and the other was reviewed after a minimum follow-up of 1 year. There were no infections. One patient was lost to follow-up after 2 months. The mean surgery duration was 50 minutes (45-60). Four fractures healed within 3 months and one at 2 months. There were no intraoperative or postoperative complications. At a minimum follow-up of 6 months, the mean Constant score was 51 (32-60), the weighted Constant score was 79 (64-85) and the mean Quick DASH was 42 (18-38). All patients had regained the range of motion they had before the fracture. None of the patients required reoperation and all had returned to the same quality of life as before the fracture within 3 months. Conclusion: Analysis of these five cases shows the feasibility and simplicity of using the holes in the existing lockable humeral stem to stabilize a plate manufactured specifically for this type of stem. For periprosthetic fractures in patients who already have a lockable humeral stem, a stable construct can be achieved that firmly binds the diaphysis and implant. This type of construct allows the existing humeral stem to be preserved in cases of complex periprosthetic fractures in older adults and the operating time to be shortened.

Primary stability of fixation methods for periprosthetic fractures of the humerus: a biomechanical investigation.

The incidence of periprosthetic fractures of the proximal humerus is gradually increasing, following an increase in reverse shoulder arthroplasties in recent years. Locking plate fixation and revision arthroplasty are both valuable treatment methods. However, the primary stability of fixation methods for periprosthetic fractures has not been investigated in detail. The aim of this study was to analyze and compare the primary stability of the common treatment measures. Cemented reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (Delta Xtend; DePuy Synthes, Warsaw, IN, USA) was performed in 5 shoulders, and a distal, mid-diaphysis humeral fracture (Wright and Cofield type B) was induced. The implant was left in place, and 3 distinct fixation scenarios were tested: osteosynthesis using 4.5-mm locking plate fixation (subgroup A), 4.5-mm locking plate fixation with an additional 3.5-mm locking plate (subgroup B), and 4.5-mm locking plate fixation with an additional K-wire cerclage (subgroup C). The specimens were tested in a biomechanical setup simulating activities of daily living including rotation. Strain gauges (4-wire strain at 120 Ω; Vishay Measurements Group, Chartres, France) mounted on the 4.5-mm locking plates were used to evaluate the strain of the fixation and to give an estimate of primary stability. Regarding the simulation of activities of daily living, no statistically significant differences were found in the measured strains on the locking plate between subgroups A, B, and C. A maximum measured strain of 216.85 μm/m in subgroup A resulted in bending of the locking plate (length, 134 mm) of 0.03 mm. In subgroup B (277.01 μm/m), the plate strained 0.04 mm compared with a strain measurement of 0.01 mm in subgroup C (75.93 μm/m). Additional K-wire cerclages or additional 3.5-mm locked plating did not increase primary stability. With a stable prosthetic implant in place, 4.5-mm locked plating is sufficient to address periprosthetic humeral shaft fractures in the present invitro setup.

Scope and Limits of Teriparatide Use in Delayed and Nonunions: A Case Series.

Nonunion is known to occur in up to 10% of all bone fractures. Until recently, the treatment options considered in cases of delayed union and nonunion focused on revision surgery and improvement of local healing. Lately, teriparatide has been introduced as an osteoanabolic factor that induces fracture healing in cases with delayed or nonunions. We report on a series of five cases of delayed and nonunions treated with teriparatide: delayed unions of an atypical femoral fracture, of a multifragmentary clavicle fracture, and of a periprosthetic humeral fracture; nonunion of a tibial and fibular fracture; and infected nonunion of a tibial and fibular fracture. Based on this series, the indications and limits of application of teriparatide in cases of impaired fracture healing are discussed. Due to the “off-label” character of this application, informed consent, and cost coverage from the healthcare insurance must be obtained prior to treatment. In our experience and according to the limited existing literature, teriparatide is a safe feasible treatment in cases of delayed and nonunions with a reasonable need of resources. While adequate biomechanical stability remains the cornerstone of fracture healing, as well as healing of nonunions, teriparatide could help avoid repetitive surgeries, especially in atrophic delayed and nonunions, as well as in patients with impaired fracture healing undergoing bisphosphonate therapy. There is an urgent need for widely accepted definitions, standardized protocols, as well as further clinical trials in the field of impaired fracture healing.

A Long-Term Follow-Up of Post-Operative Periprosthetic Humeral Fracture in Shoulder Arthroplasty.

BackgroundDuring the last decades, the growing number of shoulder replacement has increased the associated complications. Periprosthetic fractures have a low incidence but can be a severe clinical condition, especially in elderly population. There are still no guidelines to define the best treatment protocol for post-operative periprosthetic humeral fractures. Factors associated to these fractures and consequently the decision-making for the best treatment seem to be patient-related but also correlated with the type of implant. The aim of this study is to analyze the patient’s risk factors, fracture pattern, implant type and treatment, evaluating the outcome with a long-term follow-up.MethodsA retrospective study was performed on more than 2700 shoulder prostheses implanted over 10 years in two specialized centers, identifying 19 patients who underwent surgery for post-operative periprosthetic fracture. Gender, age, comorbidities, type of prosthetic implant, type of fracture, and cortical index of each patient were evaluated. All patients underwent surgery and were evaluated with a mean follow-up of 5 years with radiographic controls and functional assessment with the Constant–Murley score.ResultsComplete healing was achieved in 18 of 19 patients. All patients presented a lower Constant–Murley score than the pre-fracture score, there were no significant differences between prosthetic implants, and the cortical index was lower than the threshold level in more than 60% of cases.ConclusionThe results of this study showed that a correct preoperative planning is essential to evaluate the type of implant and possible signs of stem mobilization. With a stable stem, it is preferable to maintain it and proceed to a synthesis. The decision process is more complex in periprosthetic fractures with a reduced cortical index, when some radiolucency lines are present in stems with high primary stability, because it is not always indicative of an unstable stem.Level of EvidenceTherapeutic III

A Tensionable Suture-based Cerclage Is an Alternative to Stainless Steel Cerclage Fixation for Stabilization of a Humeral Osteotomy During Shoulder Arthroplasty.

Fixation of periprosthetic humeral fractures is most commonly obtained with steel-based wires or cables; however, disadvantages with these constructs are numerous. Suture-based cerclages offer the advantage of easy handling, less radiographic interference, and risk of metallosis, as well as decreased risk of cutting into the soft humeral bone. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare a suture-based cerclage to a stainless steel wire cerclage (SSWC) for stabilization of the humerus during shoulder arthroplasty. In part I of the study, SSWC fixation was compared with single-looped tape cerclage and a double-looped tape cerclage (DLTC) fixation. In part II, a subsidence test was performed on 12 cadaveric humeri. After an osteotomy, the humeri were secured with either a SSWC or DLTC. Subsequently, a metal wedge was introduced into the humerus to simulate the stem of a shoulder arthroplasty. In part I, load to 2-mm displacement was significantly higher for the DLTC construct compared with the SSWC construct (2,401 ± 483 N versus 750 ± 33 N; P < 0.0001). Load to failure was 935 ± 143 N with the SSWC, 1,737 ± 113 N with the single-looped tape cerclage, and 4,360 ± 463 N with the DLTC constructs, and all differences were statistically significant (P < 0.05). In part II, load at 20-mm subsidence was higher for the DLTC (320 ± 274 N) compared with the SSWC (247 ± 137 N), but no significant difference was observed (P > 0.05). However, gap displacement at 20 mm subsidence was significantly lower with the DLTC construct (0.33 ± 0.31 mm versus 0.77 ± 0.23 mm; P = 0.009). Load to failure was higher with the DLTC construct compared with the SSWC construct (4,447 ± 2,325 N versus 1,880 ± 1,089 N; P = 0.032), but the final gap displacement did not differ significantly (DLTC 5.23 ± 6.63 mm versus SSWC 6.03 ± 8.82 mm; P > 0.05). A DLTC has higher load to failure and trends toward lower gap displacement compared with a SSWC. The DLTC construct may therefore be a viable alternative for fixation of periprosthetic fractures or osteotomies of the humeral shaft during shoulder arthroplasty.

Nonoperative Treatment of Periprosthetic Humeral Shaft Fractures After Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty.

Few studies report on periprosthetic humeral shaft fractures after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA). The authors evaluated outcomes of 5 patients with this complication who were initially treated nonoperatively. Of 152 patients who underwent RTSA at the authors' institution from 2012 to 2017, 4 experienced periprosthetic humeral shaft fractures. One patient was referred to the authors for fracture treatment. All 5 patients were initially treated nonoperatively. The mean duration of follow-up was 11.5 months (range, 1.5-26 months). The authors analyzed time to fracture union, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) score, visual analog scale (VAS) score for pain, and active shoulder range of motion. Fracture union occurred in 4 patients treated nonoperatively at a mean of 4.4 months. Mean SANE score was 55 of 100 (range, 20-85). Mean VAS score was 3.4 of 10 (range, 0-8). Mean forward elevation was 83° (range, 45°-110°); mean abduction was 65° (range, 45°-80°); and mean external rotation with the arm at the side was 15° (range, 0°-30°). Many factors must be considered when customizing treatment for patients with periprosthetic fracture after RTSA. This case series indicates that nonoperative treatment of postoperative periprosthetic humeral shaft fractures can be successful. [Orthopedics. 2020;43(6):e553-e560.].

Strut graft vs. traditional plating in the management of periprosthetic humeral fractures: a multicentric cohort study.

Aim The gradual increase in shoulder implants in active elderly patients has appeared in a parallel increase in periprosthetic humeral fractures. The aim of this study was to investigate the advantages of using strut grafting with plate fixation during periprosthetic humerus fractures. Methods Thirty patients diagnosed with periprosthetic humeral fracture were divided into two groups. The first group of 15 patients (PS) underwent plate, ring, screws and strut allografts. The second group with resting 15 patients (PWS) was treated with only plate and screws. The criteria to evaluate the groups during followup were the Constant Shoulder Score (CSS) and Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS); the bone healing was measured by X-rays, controls measured by radiographic union score (RUS), and complications. The follow up was terminated at 12nd month in both groups. Results The difference between the two groups in all parameters was not significant. However, all patients gained adequate shoulder motor skills for normal daily living activities. All fractures were healed. Only two complications were registered, and blood loss was minimal. Conclusion We believe a revision to reverse shoulder prosthesis with a long-stem implant with or without cortical strut allograft augmentation to be safe and appropriate in the management of these complex injuries, though technically challenging, and having good results for normal activities daily life.

Periprosthetic Fractures in Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: Current Concepts and Advances in Management.

Expanded indications for reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) have raised awareness of associated complications, including periprosthetic fractures. The purpose of this article was to provide a comprehensive update on how, when, and why RSA-related periprosthetic fractures occur, as well as to describe the current treatment strategies. Periprosthetic acromial and scapular spine fractures occur in up to 4.3% of cases and periprosthetic humeral fractures occur in approximately 3.5% of RSA procedures. Fractures of the coracoid process and clavicle have also been reported. Current literature has identified several risk factors for intraoperative or postoperative fracture, including underlying osteoporosis, revision arthroplasty, use of a superiorly placed screw during metaglene fixation, and disruption of the scapular ring by transection of the coracoacromial ligament. Periprosthetic fracture associated with RSA is a clinically significant event that warrants prolonged postoperative vigilance, timely diagnosis, and shared patient decision-making regarding treatment. Further research is needed to identify optimal treatment strategies and characterize long-term clinical outcomes following RSA-related periprosthetic fracture.

High prevalence of outpatient falls following elective shoulder arthroplasty

This study characterized the prevalence and risk factors of inpatient and outpatient postoperative falls in patients undergoing elective shoulder arthroplasty. A retrospective chart review of 198 patients undergoing anatomic or reverse total shoulder arthroplasty or hemiarthroplasties at one institution between 2015 and 2017 was reviewed to determine the prevalence of inpatient and outpatient falls up to 90 days after discharge. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to assess potential risk factors for postoperative falls including demographics, indication for surgery, surgical procedure, medical history, length of hospital stay, perioperative hemoglobin, need for transfusion, and discharge disposition. There were 23 falls in 22 patients within a 90-day postoperative period. The inpatient fall rate was 1.0% (2 of 198). The outpatient fall rate was 10.6% (21 of 198). Outpatient falls resulted in emergency department evaluation in 23.8% of cases (5 of 21), readmission in 19.0% (4 of 21), injury to an anatomic site other than the shoulder in 19.0% (4 of 21), and injury at the surgical site (eg, periprosthetic humeral fracture) in 4.8% (1 of 21). No significant risk factors were identified for inpatient falls. Independent risk factors for an outpatient fall were female sex (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 4.79; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.32, 17.4; P = .007), increased length of hospital stay (aOR = 1.23; 95% CI: 1.04, 1.45; P = .02), and history of a movement disorder (aOR = 7.20; 95% CI: 1.22, 42.6; P = .03). A high outpatient fall rate of 10.6% within 90 days after discharge raises the concern that falls after shoulder arthroplasty are significantly higher than previously reported.