High return to sport rate and good patient-reported outcomes in recreational athletes following simple elbow dislocations

Abstract Background The purpose of this study was to investigate outcomes and return to sport metrics in recreational athletes who suffered simple elbow dislocations and were treated operatively or nonoperatively. Methods The study included patients between the ages of 16 and 65 who were recreational athletes and had experienced a simple elbow dislocation, with at least 2 years having passed since the injury. Patient-reported outcomes including Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), Subjective Elbow Value (SEV), Oxford Elbow Score (OES) and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) were collected. Return to sport metrics were assessed. Results A total of 44 patients (21 females, mean age 43.8 years [95% CI, 39.1–48.5]) who were recreational athletes before their injury completed follow-up at mean 7.6 years (95% CI, 6.7–8.5). There were 29 patients (65.9%) who were treated operatively. Mean MEPS was 93.3 (95% CI, 90.2–96.4), mean SEV was 94.9 (95% CI, 91.9–97.9) and mean OES was 43.3 (95% CI, 41.3–45.4). A total of 36 (81.8%) patients returned to their pre-injury sport. Mean time to return to sport was 21.7 (95% CI, 16.8–26.5) weeks. There was a significant difference in OES (P = .019) and SEV (P = .030) that favored the nonoperative group; however, no significant differences for MEPS, VAS, satisfaction, arc of motion and return to sport were present between groups. A total of five (11.4%) complications were observed and one (2.3%) required revision. Conclusions Good outcomes and a high return to sport rate can be expected in recreational athletes following operative and nonoperative treatment of simple elbow dislocations. However, as many as one-in-five patients may not return to pre-injury sport

Arthroscopic Fixation of an Anterior Labroligamentous Periosteal Sleeve Avulsion (ALPSA) of the Shoulder

Anterior labroligamentous periosteal sleeve avulsions represent a diagnostic and treatment challenge. They are associated with a higher number of preoperative dislocations, as well as longer chronicity, and commonly result in a scarred and medialized labrum and periosteal sleeve complex. Anterior labroligamentous periosteal sleeve avulsion lesions therefore may be commonly overlooked. The complexity of the injury pattern has been associated with double the failure rate of standard Bankart lesions after arthroscopic repair. The purpose of this article is to describe our preferred arthroscopic technique for achieving full mobilization of the labral-periosteal complex and restore it to its anatomic location using a knotless, all-suture anchor construct

Posterior Glenoid Reconstruction Using a Distal Tibial Allograft

Posterior shoulder instability is increasingly recognized and diagnosed in young athletes. These patients often present with vague shoulder pain rather than the frank instability commonly seen with anterior instability. Three common causes of posterior shoulder instability are congenital retroversion, a single traumatic event, or repetitive microtrauma with erosive effects. The critical determination when deciding on the appropriate treatment of posterior shoulder instability is the presence and degree of glenoid bone loss. In patients without bone loss, arthroscopic procedures have a high success rate with a failure rate of less than 10% and an 89% return-to-sport rate. The determination of the critical amount of bone loss that would permit an arthroscopic procedure is controversial, but recent reports that attempt to quantify the critical bone loss value posteriorly have ranged from 13.5% to 20%. This Technical Note describes our preferred method of open surgical treatment of posterior shoulder instability with posterior glenoid bone loss using an intra-articular distal tibial allograft

Total Shoulder Arthroplasty After Previous Arthroscopic Surgery for Glenohumeral Osteoarthritis: A Case-Control Matched Cohort Study

Background: When comprehensive arthroscopic management (CAM) for glenohumeral osteoarthritis fails, total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) may be needed, and it remains unknown whether previous CAM adversely affects outcomes after subsequent TSA. Purpose: To compare the outcomes of patients with glenohumeral osteoarthritis who underwent TSA as a primary procedure with those who underwent TSA after CAM (CAM-TSA). Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Patients younger than 70 years who underwent primary TSA or CAM-TSA and were at least 2 years postoperative were included. A total of 21 patients who underwent CAM-TSA were matched to 42 patients who underwent primary TSA by age, sex, and grade of osteoarthritis. Intraoperative blood loss and surgical time were assessed. Patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores were collected preoperatively and at final follow-up including the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE), shortened version of Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (QuickDASH), 12-Item Short Form Health Survey Physical Component Summary (SF-12 PCS), visual analog scale, and patient satisfaction. Revision arthroplasty was defined as failure. Results: Of 63 patients, 56 of them (19 CAM-TSA and 37 primary TSA; 88.9%) were available for follow-up. There were 16 female (28.6%) and 40 male (71.4%) patients with a mean age of 57.8 years (range, 38.8-66.7 years). There were no significant differences in intraoperative blood loss (P > .999) or surgical time (P = .127) between the groups. There were 4 patients (7.1%) who had failure, and failure rates did not differ significantly between the CAM-TSA (5.3%; n = 1) and primary TSA (8.1%; n = 3) groups (P > .999). Additionally, 2 patients underwent revision arthroplasty because of trauma. A total of 50 patients who did not experience failure (17 CAM-TSA and 33 primary TSA) completed PRO measures at a mean follow-up of 4.8 years (range, 2.0-11.5 years), with no significant difference between the CAM-TSA (4.4 years [range, 2.1-10.5 years]) and primary TSA (5.0 years [range, 2.0-11.5 years]) groups (P = .164). Both groups improved significantly from preoperatively to postoperatively in all PRO scores (P < .05). No significant differences in any median PRO scores between the CAM-TSA and primary TSA groups, respectively, were seen at final follow-up: ASES: 89.9 (interquartile range [IQR], 74.9-96.6) versus 94.1 (IQR, 74.9-98.3) (P = .545); SANE: 84.0 (IQR, 74.0-94.0) versus 91.5 (IQR, 75.3-99.0) (P = .246); QuickDASH: 9.0 (IQR, 3.4-27.3) versus 9.0 (IQR, 5.1-18.1) (P = .921); SF-12 PCS: 53.8 (IQR, 50.1-57.1) versus 49.3 (IQR, 41.2-56.5) (P = .065); and patient satisfaction: 9.5 (IQR, 7.3-10.0) versus 9.0 (IQR, 5.3-10.0) (P = .308). Conclusion: Patients with severe glenohumeral osteoarthritis who failed previous CAM benefited similarly from TSA compared with patients who opted directly for TSA

Posterior Glenoid Augmentation With Extra-articular Iliac Crest Autograft for Recurrent Posterior Shoulder Instability

Several techniques have been described for bone block augmentation as a treatment for posterior shoulder instability, including intra-articular distal tibial allograft and extra-articular iliac crest autograft. Although indications are not yet well defined, these bone augmentation procedures are considered in patients with glenoid bone loss, increased glenoid retroversion, previous failed posterior soft-tissue repair, and insufficient posterior capsulolabral tissue. In patients with posterior glenoid bone loss, the senior author (P.J.M.) recommends intra-articular glenoid reconstruction with a fresh distal tibial osteoarticular allograft. In patients with insufficient posterior capsulolabral tissue, the senior author prefers an extra-articular iliac crest autograft to buttress the posterior soft-tissue restraints. This technique guide outlines extra-articular iliac crest autograft treatment for recurrent posterior shoulder instability in patients with insufficient posterior soft tissues due to prior failed surgery. After an open capsulolabral repair is performed using suture anchors, the bone block is placed extra-articularly on the posterior glenoid neck