Prognostic Factors in Arthroplasty in the Rheumatoid Shoulder

Total shoulder arthroplasty is commonly considered a good option for treatment of the rheumatoid shoulder. However, when the rotator cuff and glenoid bone stock are not preserved, the clinical outcome of arthroplasty in the rheumatoid patients remains unclear. Aim of the study is to explore the prognostic value of multiple preoperative and peroperative variables in total shoulder arthroplasty and shoulder hemiarthroplasty in rheumatoid patients. Clinical Hospital for Special Surgery Shoulder score was determined at different time points over a mean period of 6.5 years in 66 rheumatoid patients with total shoulder arthroplasty and 75 rheumatoid patients with shoulder hemiarthroplasty. Moreover, radiographic analysis was performed to assess the progression of humeral head migration and glenoid loosening. Advanced age and erosions or cysts at the AC joint at time of surgery were associated with a lower postoperative Clinical Hospital for Special Surgery Shoulder score. In total shoulder arthroplasty, status of the rotator cuff and its repair at surgery were predictive of postoperative improvement. Progression of proximal migration during the period after surgery was associated with a lower clinical score over time. However, in hemiarthroplasty, no relation was observed between the progression of proximal or medial migration during follow-up and the clinical score over time. Status of the AC joint and age at the time of surgery should be taken into account when considering shoulder arthroplasty in rheumatoid patients. Total shoulder arthroplasty in combination with good cuff repair yields comparable clinical results as total shoulder arthroplasty when the cuff is intact

The controversy of patellar resurfacing in total knee arthroplasty: Ibisne in medio tutissimus?

Early arthroplasty designs were associated with a high level of anterior knee pain as they failed to cater for the patello-femoral joint. Patellar resurfacing was heralded as the saviour safeguarding patient satisfaction and success but opinion on its necessity has since deeply divided the scientific community and has become synonymous to topics of religion or politics. Opponents of resurfacing contend that the native patella provides better patellar tracking, improved clinical function, and avoids implant-related complications, whilst proponents argue that patients have less pain, are overall more satisfied, and avert the need for secondary resurfacing. The question remains whether complications associated with patellar resurfacing including those arising from future component revision outweigh the somewhat increased incidence of anterior knee pain recorded in unresurfaced patients. The current scientific literature, which is often affected by methodological limitations and observer bias, remains confusing as it provides evidence in support of both sides of the argument, whilst blinded satisfaction studies comparing resurfaced and non-resurfaced knees generally reveal equivalent results. Even national arthroplasty register data show wide variations in the proportion of patellar resurfacing between countries that cannot be explained by cultural differences alone. Advocates who always resurface or never resurface indiscriminately expose the patella to a random choice. Selective resurfacing offers a compromise by providing a decision algorithm based on a propensity for improved clinical success, whilst avoiding potential complications associated with unnecessary resurfacing. Evidence regarding the validity of selection criteria, however, is missing, and the decision when to resurface is often based on intuitive reasoning. Our lack of understanding why, irrespective of pre-operative symptoms and patellar resurfacing, some patients may suffer pain following TKA and others may not have so far stifled our efforts to make the strategy of selective resurfacing succeed. We should hence devote our efforts in defining predictive criteria and indicators that will enable us to reliably identify those individuals who might benefit from a resurfacing procedure. Level of evidence V

Stiffness in total knee arthroplasty

Stiffness is a relatively uncommon complication after total knee arthroplasty. It has been defined as a painful limitation in the range of movement (ROM). Its pathogenesis is still unclear even if some risk factors have been identified. Patient-related conditions may be difficult to treat. Preoperative ROM is the most important risk factor, but an association with diabetes, reflex sympathetic dystrophy, and general pathologies such as juvenile rheumatoid arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis has been demonstrated. Moreover, previous surgery may be an additional cause of an ROM limitation. Postoperative factors include infections, arthrofibrosis, heterotrophic ossifications, and incorrect rehabilitation protocol. Infections represent a challenging problem for the orthopaedic surgeon, and treatment may require long periods of antibiotics administration. However, it is widely accepted that an aggressive rehabilitation protocol is mandatory for a proper ROM recovery and to avoid the onset of arthrofibrosis and heterotrophic ossifications. Finally, surgery-related factors represent the most common cause of stiffness; they include errors in soft-tissue balancing, component malpositioning, and incorrect component sizing. Although closed manipulation, arthroscopic and open arthrolysis have been proposed, they may lead to unpredictable results and incomplete ROM recovery. Revision surgery must be proposed in the case of well-documented surgical errors. These operations are technically demanding and may be associated with high risk of complications; therefore they should be accurately planned and properly performed