Injuries to the acromioclavicular (AC) joint are common and mostly involve younger, male individuals. Whereas the majority of AC joint dislocations can be treated nonoperatively with a trial of immobilization, pain medication, cryotherapy, and physiotherapy, there are patients that do not respond well to conservative management and may require surgical treatment. Identifying and treating these patients according to the type and chronicity of AC joint dislocation is paramount. To date, a myriad of surgical techniques have been proposed to address unstable AC joint dislocations and are indicative of the uncertainty that exists in optimal management of these injuries. Historically research has focused on the restoration of the coracoclavicular ligament complex. However, recently the importance of the acromioclavicular capsule and ligaments has been emphasized. This review aims to provide the reader with an overview of current treatment strategies and research, as well as future perspectives.

Large and massive rotator cuff tears have the highest risk of retear. Common biologic modalities that can potentially reduce the retear rate and improve healing include platelet-rich plasma (PRP), scaffolds, and mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs). PRP has been studied for its role in improving rotator cuff healing and results of randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses show mixed results. Most studies in large and massivge tears show that PRP decreases the retear rate, but the connection between structural integrity and clinical outcomes is still unknown. Extracellular matrix (ECM) and synthetic scaffolds can increase healing in augmentation and bridging repair. Acellular dermal allografts have shown better healing rates and outcomes than xenografts in meta-analyses. Synthetic scaffolds augmented with bone marrow-derived stem cells have only been studied in vitro but are promising for the combination of mechanical stability and induction of a biological response. Superior capsule reconstruction is an exciting type of interposition graft reconstruction that has shown favorable early clinical outcomes for large and massive tears. Bone marrow-derived stem cells and adipose-derived stem cells improve the biomechanical characteristics of tendon repair and enhance the histological findings of the healing process in animal studies. However, evidence from human studies is lacking, especially in patients with large and massive tears. In summary, there are many biological options to augment rotator cuff repair in patients with large and massive tears. Due to mixed results and a lack of standardization in high-quality studies, we cannot recommend PRP at this time as an adjunct to rotator cuff repair. Both ECM and synthetic scaffolds, as well as SCR, can be used, especially in situations where native tendon is compromised, and additional mechanical augmentation is needed. Stem cells have been the least studied to date, so it is difficult to give recommendations for or against their use at this time.

Few long-term outcome studies exist evaluating glenohumeral osteoarthritis (GHOA) treatment with arthroscopic management. To determine outcomes, risk factors for failure, and survivorship for the comprehensive arthroscopic management (CAM) procedure for the treatment of GHOA at minimum 10-year follow-up. Case series; Level of evidence, 3. The CAM procedure was performed on a consecutive series of patients with advanced GHOA who opted for joint preservation surgery and otherwise met criteria for total shoulder arthroplasty. At minimum 10-year follow-up, postoperative outcome measures included change in the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, 12-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12) Physical Component Summary, and visual analog scale for pain, along with the QuickDASH (shortened version of Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand) and satisfaction score. Kaplan-Meier survivorship analysis was performed, with failure defined as progression to arthroplasty. In total, 38 CAM procedures were performed with 10-year minimum follow-up (range, 10-14 years) with a mean patient age of 53 years (range, 27-68 years) at the time of surgery. Survivorship was 75.3% at 5 years and 63.2% at minimum 10 years. Those who progressed to arthroplasty did so at a mean 4.7 years (range, 0.8-9.6 years). For those who did not undergo arthroplasty, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores significantly improved postoperatively at 5 years (63.3 to 89.6; P < .001) and 10 years (63.3 to 80.6; P = .007). CAM failure was associated with severe preoperative humeral head incongruity in 93.8% of failures as compared with 50.0% of patients who did not go on to arthroplasty (P = .008). Median satisfaction was 7.5 out of 10. Significant improvements in patient-reported outcomes were sustained at minimum 10-year follow-up in young patients with GHOA who underwent a CAM procedure. The survivorship rate at minimum 10-year follow-up was 63.2%. Humeral head flattening and severe joint incongruity were risk factors for CAM failure. The CAM procedure is an effective joint-preserving treatment for GHOA in appropriately selected patients, with sustained positive outcomes at 10 years.

Background: Revision rates following radial head arthroplasty (RHA) for unreconstructible radial head fractures (RHFs) differ vastly in the literature, and little is known about the risk factors that are associated with revision surgery. The purposes of this study were to assess the revision rate following RHA and to determine the associated risk factors. Methods: A total of 122 patients (mean age, 50.7 years; range, 18 to 79 years) with 123 RHAs who underwent RHA for unreconstructible RHFs between 1994 and 2014 and were ≥3 years out from surgery were included. Demographic variables, injury and procedure-related characteristics, radiographic findings, complications, and revision procedures were assessed. Cox regression analysis was performed to identify the risk factors that were associated with revision surgery following RHA. Results: The median follow-up for the study cohort was 7.3 years (interquartile range [IQR], 5.1 to 10.1 years). All of the patients had unreconstructible RHFs: Mason-Johnston type-IV injuries were the most prevalent (80 [65%]). One or more associated osseous or ligamentous injuries were seen in 89 elbows (72.4%). The median time to surgery was 7 days (IQR, 3 to 11 days). Implanted prostheses were categorized as rigidly fixed (65 [52.8%]) or loosely fixed (58 [47.2%]). A total of 28 elbows (22.8%) underwent revision surgery at a median of 1.1 years (IQR, 0.3 to 3.8 years), with the majority of elbows (17 [60.7%]) undergoing revision surgery within the first 2 years. The most common reason for revision surgery was painful implant loosening (14 [29.2% of 48 complications]). Univariate Cox regression suggested that Workers’ Compensation claims (hazard ratio [HR], 5.48; p < 0.001) and the use of an external fixator (HR, 4.67; p = 0.007) were significantly associated with revision surgery. Conclusions: Revision rates following RHA for unreconstructible RHFs are high; the most common cause for revision surgery is painful implant loosening. Revision surgeries are predominantly performed within the first 2 years after implantation, and surgeons should be aware that Workers’ Compensation claims and the use of an external fixator in management of the elbow injury are associated with revision surgery. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.