Challenges for Optimization of Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty Part I: External Rotation, Extension and Internal Rotation.

A detailed overview of the basic science and clinical literature reporting on the challenges for the optimization of reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) is presented in two review articles. Part I looks at (I) external rotation and extension, (II) internal rotation and the analysis and discussion of the interplay of different factors influencing these challenges. In part II, we focus on (III) the conservation of sufficient subacromial and coracohumeral space, (IV) scapular posture and (V) moment arms and muscle tensioning. There is a need to define the criteria and algorithms for planning and execution of optimized, balanced RSA to improve the range of motion, function and longevity whilst minimizing complications. For an optimized RSA with the highest function, it is important not to overlook any of these challenges. This summary may be used as an aide memoire for RSA planning

Is copyright blind to the visual?

This article argues that, with respect to the copyright protection of works of visual art, the general uneasiness that has always pervaded the relationship between copyright law and concepts of creativity produces three anomalous results. One of these is that copyright lacks much in the way of a central concept of 'visual art' and, to the extent that it embraces any concept of the 'visual', it is rooted in the rhetorical discourse of the Renaissance. This means that copyright is poorly equipped to deal with modern developments in the visual arts. Secondly, the pervasive effect of rhetorical discourse appears to have made it particularly difficult for copyright law to strike a meaningful balance between protecting creativity and permitting its use in further creative works. Thirdly, just when rhetorical discourse might have been useful in identifying the significance and materiality of the unique one-off work of visual art, copyright law chooses to ignore its implications

Offene Latarjet-Patte-Operation nach Walch : Tipps, Tricks und Komplikationsvermeidung

Walch hat die Latarjet-Patte-Operation in offener Technik unter Anwendung eines Subskapularis-Splits in den 1980er-Jahren modifiziert, standardisiert und über Jahrzehnte mit großem Erfolg bei über 3500 Patienten angewandt. In Langzeitnachuntersuchungen wurden Rezidivraten von 1–5 % bei hoher Patientenzufriedenheit im Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV > 90 %) dokumentiert [1, 2]. Diese Ergebnisse konnten in Zürich durch Gerber reproduziert werden [3]. Die Methode hat in mehreren Langzeitstudien den Beweis des Erreichens dauerhafter Stabilität (Langzeitstabilität nach mehr als 6 bis 10 Jahren) bei Risikopatienten erbracht [2, 3], besonders für Wettkampfsportler [4,5,6], junge Patienten [7, 8] und Patienten mit glenoidalem Knochenverlust [1, 9]. Bei korrekter Operationstechnik entsteht kein klinisch relevanter Beweglichkeitsverlust, und es besteht kein Zusammenhang mit der Entstehung oder Progression einer Instabilitätsarthrose [10]. In einer randomisierten kontrollierten Studie (RCT) zeigte sich eine signifikant niedrigere Reluxationsrate für die Latarjet-Stabilisierung bei jungen Männern unter 25 Jahren im Vergleich zur arthroskopischen Bankart-Operation [8]

Chronische posttraumatische Schulterinstabilität

Chronic posttraumatic shoulder instability is characterized by trauma-associated, recurrent dislocations. Surgical treatment is indicated in most cases but it remains controversial how risk factors should be weighted to decide between arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR), Latarjet or alternative procedures. Known risk factors for recurrence are patient age, hyperlaxity, sports profile and bone loss. Surgical techniques are discussed in detail. The ABR leads to high patient satisfaction and return to sports; however, in association with risk factors, recurrent dislocations are seen even several years later. Latarjet or bone block procedures lead to high patient satisfaction, sustainable stability as a revision procedure, but can also be primarily indicated for chronic instability depending on risk factors. Early complications are more frequent but of a minor nature in most cases. All techniques are known for a serious learning curve. If performed well, they do not seem to increase the risk of arthritis, which is most affected by the number of lifetime dislocations and higher energy trauma

Rethinking the social impacts of the arts

The paper presents a critical discussion of the current debate over the social impacts of the arts in the UK. It argues that the accepted understanding of the terms of the debate is rooted in a number of assumptions and beliefs that are rarely questioned. The paper goes on to present the interim findings of a three‐year research project, which aims to rethink the social impact of the arts, with a view to determining how these impacts might be better understood. The desirability of a historical approach is articulated, and a classification of the claims made within the Western intellectual tradition for what the arts “do” to people is presented and discussed

Characterization of Antibodies against Receptor Activity-Modifying Protein 1 (RAMP1): A Cautionary Tale

Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) is a key component of migraine pathophysiology, yielding effective migraine therapeutics. CGRP receptors contain a core accessory protein subunit: receptor activity-modifying protein 1 (RAMP1). Understanding of RAMP1 expression is incomplete, partly due to the challenges in identifying specific and validated antibody tools. We profiled antibodies for immunodetection of RAMP1 using Western blotting, immunocytochemistry and immunohistochemistry, including using RAMP1 knockout mouse tissue. Most antibodies could detect RAMP1 in Western blotting and immunocytochemistry using transfected cells. Two antibodies (844, ab256575) could detect a RAMP1-like band in Western blots of rodent brain but not RAMP1 knockout mice. However, cross-reactivity with other proteins was evident for all antibodies. This cross-reactivity prevented clear conclusions about RAMP1 anatomical localization, as each antibody detected a distinct pattern of immunoreactivity in rodent brain. We cannot confidently attribute immunoreactivity produced by RAMP1 antibodies (including 844) to the presence of RAMP1 protein in immunohistochemical applications in brain tissue. RAMP1 expression in brain and other tissues therefore needs to be revisited using RAMP1 antibodies that have been comprehensively validated using multiple strategies to establish multiple lines of convincing evidence. As RAMP1 is important for other GPCR/ligand pairings, our results have broader significance beyond the CGRP field