The Latarjet and iliac crest bone graft transfer (ICBGT) procedures are competing treatment options for anterior shoulder instability with glenoid bone loss. In this bicentric prospective randomized study, 60 patients with anterior shoulder instability and glenoid bone loss were included and randomized to either an open Latarjet or open ICBGT (J-bone graft) procedure. Clinical evaluation was completed before surgery and 6, 12, and 24 months after surgery, including the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability index, Rowe score, Subjective Shoulder Value, pain level, satisfaction level, and work and sports impairment, as well as assessment of instability, range of motion, and strength. Adverse events were prospectively recorded. Radiographic evaluation included preoperative, postoperative, and follow-up computed tomography analysis. None of the clinical scores showed a significant difference between the 2 groups (P > .05). Strength and range of motion showed no significant differences except for diminished internal rotation capacity in the Latarjet group at every follow-up time point (P < .05). A single postoperative traumatic subluxation event occurred in 2 ICBGT patients and 1 Latarjet patient. The type and severity of other adverse events were heterogeneous. Donor-site sensory disturbances were observed in 27% of the ICBGT patients. Computed tomography scans revealed a larger glenoid augmentation effect of the ICBGTs; this, however, was attenuated at follow-up. The Latarjet and ICBGT procedures for the treatment of anterior shoulder instability with glenoid bone loss showed no difference in clinical and radiologic outcomes except for significantly worse internal rotation capacity in the Latarjet group and frequently noted donor-site sensory disturbances in the ICBGT group.

Posterior glenohumeral instability (PGHI) is a commonly under- and misdiagnosed pathology owing to its variety of clinical presentations. In order to facilitate diagnosis and treatment, the simple yet comprehensive ABC classification for PGHI is based on the underlying pathomechanical principles and current standard of treatment. Three main groups of PGHI are distinguished based on the type of instability: A (first time), B (dynamic), C (static). Two subtypes further differentiate these groups in terms of their specific pathomechanism and provide a guideline in the choice of appropriate treatment: A (1, subluxation; 2, dislocation), B (1, functional; 2, structural), C (1, constitutional; 2, acquired). While conservative treatment is warranted in most patients with type 1 PGHI (A1, B1, C1), surgical treatment should be considered on an individual basis in patients with type 2 PGHI (A2, B2, C2), while keeping in mind that the different groups and subtypes can overlap, co-exist, or even progress from one to another over time. Of course the necessity for surgical treatment depends on the extent of the structural defects, on the severity of symptoms, on the chronicity, as well as on patient-specific functional demand, age, and health status. Nonetheless, the ABC classification helps to correctly diagnose the type of PGHI and provides a guideline for the generally recommended type of treatment.

Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (RCR) with suture anchor–based fixation techniques has replaced former open and mini-open approaches. Nevertheless, long-term studies are scarce, and lack of knowledge exists about whether single-row (SR) or double-row (DR) methods are superior in clinical and anatomic results. To analyze long-term results after arthroscopic RCR in patients with symptomatic rotator cuff tears and to compare functional and radiographic outcomes between SR and DR repair techniques at least 10 years after surgery. Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Between 2005 and 2006, 40 patients with a symptomatic full-thickness rotator cuff tear (supraspinatus tendon tear with or without a tear of the infraspinatus tendon) underwent arthroscopic RCR with either an SR repair with a modified Mason-Allen suture–grasping technique (n = 20) or a DR repair with a suture bridge fixation technique (n = 20). All patients were enrolled in a long-term clinical evaluation, with the Constant score (CS) as the primary outcome measure. Furthermore, an ultrasound examination was performed to assess tendon integrity and conventional radiographs to evaluate secondary glenohumeral osteoarthritis. A total of 27 patients, of whom 16 were treated with an SR repair and 11 with a DR repair, were followed up after a mean ± SD period of 12 ± 1 years (range, 11-14 years). Five patients underwent revision surgery on the affected shoulder during follow-up period, which led to 22 patients being included. The overall CS remained stable at final follow-up when compared with short-term follow-up (81 ± 8 vs 83 ± 19 points; P = .600). An increasing number of full-thickness retears were found: 6 of 22 (27%) at 2 years and 9 of 20 (45%) at 12 years after surgery. While repair failure negatively affected clinical results as shown by the CS (P < .05), no significant difference was found between the fixation techniques (P = .456). In general, progressive osteoarthritic changes were observed, with tendon integrity as a key determinant. Arthroscopic RCR with either an SR or a DR fixation technique provided good clinical long-term results. Repair failure was high, with negative effects on clinical results and the progression of secondary glenohumeral osteoarthritis. While DR repair slightly enhanced tendon integrity at long-term follow-up, no clinical superiority to SR repair was found.

Background: Component selection and placement in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) is still being debated. Recently, scapulothoracic orientation and posture have emerged as relevant factors when planning an RTSA. However, the degree to which those parameters may influence ROM and whether modifiable elements of implant configuration may be helpful in improving ROM among patients with different postures have not been thoroughly studied, and modeling them may be instructive. Questions/purposes: Using a dedicated expansion of a conventional preoperative planning software, we asked: (1) How is patient posture likely to influence simulated ROM after virtual RTSA implantation? (2) Do changes in implant configuration, such as humeral component inclination and retrotorsion, or glenoid component size and centricity improve the simulated ROM after virtual RTSA implantation in patients with different posture types? Methods: In a computer laboratory study, available whole-torso CT scans of 30 patients (20 males and 10 females with a mean age of 65 ± 17 years) were analyzed to determine the posture type (Type A, upright posture, retracted scapulae; Type B, intermediate; Type C, kyphotic posture with protracted scapulae) based on the measured scapula internal rotation as previously described. The measurement of scapular internal rotation, which defines these posture types, was found to have a high intraclass correlation coefficient (0.87) in a previous study, suggesting reliability of the employed classification. Three shoulder surgeons each independently virtually implanted a short, curved, metaphyseal impaction stem RTSA in each patient using three-dimensional (3D) preoperative surgical planning software. Modifications based on the original component positioning were automatically generated, including different humeral component retrotorsion (0°, 20°, and 40° of anatomic and scapular internal rotation) and neck-shaft angle (135°, 145°, and 155°) as well as glenoid component configuration (36-mm concentric, 36-mm eccentric, and 42-mm concentric), resulting in 3720 different RTSA configurations. For each configuration, the maximum potential ROM in different planes was determined by the software, and the effect of different posture types was analyzed by comparing subgroups. Results: Irrespective of the RTSA implant configuration, the posture types had a strong effect on the calculated ROM in all planes of motion, except for flexion. In particular, simulated ROM in patients with Type C compared with Type A posture demonstrated inferior adduction (median 5° [interquartile range -7° to 20°] versus 15° [IQR 7° to 22°]; p < 0.01), abduction (63° [IQR 48° to 78°] versus 72° [IQR 63° to 82°]; p < 0.01), extension (4° [IQR -8° to 12°] versus 19° [IQR 8° to 27°]; p < 0.01), and external rotation (7° [IQR -5° to 22°] versus 28° [IQR 13° to 39°]; p < 0.01). Lower retrotorsion and a higher neck-shaft angle of the humeral component as well as a small concentric glenosphere resulted in worse overall ROM in patients with Type C posture, with severe restriction of motion in adduction, extension, and external rotation to below 0°. Conclusion: Different posture types affect the ROM after simulated RTSA implantation, regardless of implant configuration. An individualized choice of component configuration based on scapulothoracic orientation seems to attenuate the negative effects of posture Type B and C. Future studies on ROM after RTSA should consider patient posture and scapulothoracic orientation. Clinical Relevance: In patients with Type C posture, higher retrotorsion, a lower neck-shaft angle, and a larger or inferior eccentric glenosphere seem to be advantageous.

Background Functional shoulder instability (polar type III) is caused by underactivity of rotator cuff and periscapular muscles, which leads to subluxation or dislocation during shoulder movement. While surgical treatment has shown no benefits, aggravates pain, and frequently diminishes function even further, conservative treatment is often ineffective as well. Objectives The aim was to investigate the effectiveness of a “shoulder pacemaker” device that stimulates underactive muscles in patients with functional instability during shoulder movement in order to re-establish glenohumeral stability. Patients and methods Three patients with unsuccessfully treated functional shoulder instability causing pain, emotional stress, as well as limitations during daily activities and sports participation were enrolled in this pilot project. The device was used to stimulate the external rotators of the shoulder and retractors of the scapula. Pain level, subjective shoulder instability, range of motion, visible aberrant muscle activation, and signs of dislocation were compared when the device was switched on and off. Results No changes were observed when the device was attached but switched off. When the device was switched on, all patients were able to move their arms freely without pain, discomfort, or subjective or objective signs of instability. All patients rated this as an excellent experience and volunteered to train further with the device. No complications were observed. Conclusion The electric stimulation of hypoactive rotator cuff and periscapular muscles by means of the shoulder pacemaker successfully re-establishes stability in patients with functional shoulder instability during the time of application.