The primary objective of this study was to assess the interobserver and intraobserver agreement on ligamentous injuries on conventional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in acute simple elbow dislocation. The secondary objectives were to determine the interobserver agreement on the assessment of joint congruity, joint effusion, loose bodies and chondral lesions on conventional MRI. Conventional MRIs (1.5 Tesla, elbow specific surface coil) of 30 patients (40.7 years; range 14–72) with simple elbow dislocations were evaluated by four blinded examiners. An analysis of the interobserver agreement of all raters and for several subgroups (radiologists, orthopaedics, experienced, non-experienced) was performed. The examiners assessed the integrity (intact, partial tear, complete tear) of the lateral collateral ligament (LCL), medial collateral ligament (MCL), extensor and flexor tendons, as well as the presence of joint congruity, joint effusion, loose bodies and chondral lesions. Agreement strength, correlation and proportion of exact agreement were determined for interobserver agreement, and intraobserver agreement analyses. Interobserver agreement of all examiners was fair to moderate for collateral ligaments (LCL: 0.441, MCL: 0.275). Exact agreement of all raters was found in 33.3% for the LCL and in 26.7% for the MCL. The both experienced examiners showed highest agreement strength for the LCL (0.619) and the radiologists showed highest agreement strength for the MCL (0.627), the proportion of exact agreement was 60.0% in both categories. A high proportion of exact agreement regarding joint congruity (90%), joint effusion (100%), loose bodies (96.7%) and chondral lesion (80%) was found among the radiologists. The evaluation of the intraobserver agreement revealed slight to substantial agreement (0.227 to 0.718) for the collateral ligaments. This study shows difficulties in the evaluation of ligaments by conventional MRI technique as demonstrated by a weak inter- and intraobserver agreement. This should be the basis to develop new MRI quality standards with special focus on coronal oblique reconstructions to improve the evaluation of ligament injuries after simple elbow dislocations.

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.

The purpose of this study was to compare adverse events and clinical outcomes of geriatric proximal humerus fractures (PHF) involving the anatomical neck (type C according to AO classification) treated with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) using locking plate vs. arthroplasty. In this retrospective cohort study, geriatric patients (>64 years) who underwent operative treatment using ORIF or arthroplasty for type C PHFs were included. Complications, revisions and clinical outcomes using Constant Murley Score (CMS) and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) Score were assessed and compared between groups. At a mean follow up of 2.7 ± 1.7 years, 59 patients (mean age 75.3 ± 5.5 years) were included. In 31 patients ORIF was performed and 29 patients underwent arthroplasty. Complications and revision surgeries were significantly more frequent after ORIF (32.6% vs. 7.1%, p = 0.023 and 29.0% vs. 7.1%, p = 0.045). In contrast, clinical outcomes showed no significant differences (DASH 39.9 ± 25.7 vs. 39.25 ± 24.5, p = 0.922; CMS 49.7 ± 29.2 vs. 49.4 ± 25.2, p = 0.731). ORIF of type C PHFs in geriatric patients results in significantly more complications and revision surgery when compared to arthroplasty. Therefore, osteosynthesis of geriatric intraarticular fractures of the proximal humerus must be critically evaluated.

Considering the epidemiology of acromioclavicular (AC) dislocation related to young and active patients, the impact on working capacity is highly relevant. The purpose of this study was to determine the capacity of work and time to return to work (RTW) after AC joint stabilization. We hypothesized that manual working patients show more restrictions returning to work. In this retrospective case series, pre- and posttraumatic working capacity of 54 patients (FU-rate 80.1%, FU time 23, range 18–45 month) stabilized in single TightRope technique was analyzed. Clinical outcome (DASH, Constant-Murley score) and complications were evaluated in addition. Fifty one of 54 patients (94.5%) were returned to work at final follow-up. The median time to return was 13 (5–143) weeks. Manual working patients showed lower RTW-rates (91.2% vs. 100%; p = .151), longer RTW-time (15.5 vs. 6 weeks; p = .008), and more often persistent shoulder symptoms at work (55.9% vs. 5%; p < .001). After stabilization of AC joint dislocation, the majority of patients returned to work, needing substantial time to return. Manual working patients required more time and often suffer under persistent symptoms at work.

Background: The benefits of the interval slide (IS) procedure in retracted rotator cuff tears remain controversial. Purpose: The purpose was to evaluate the effect of the IS procedure on repair tension (RT). It was hypothesized that the IS procedure (anterior IS [AIS], posterior IS [PIS], and intra-articular capsular release [CR]) would reduce the RT of a supraspinatus tendon. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: A total of 31 Thiel-embalmed human cadaveric shoulders (mean age, 74 years; range, 68-84 years) were tested. Full-thickness supraspinatus tendon tears were created, and 1 cm of tendon was resected to simulate a retracted defect. Shoulders were randomized into intervention (n = 16) and control (n = 15) groups. In all shoulders, the load during tendon reduction to footprint was measured, an endpoint was defined as maximum tendon lateralization before 50 N was reached, and the RT (load during lateralization to endpoint) of the native tendon (t₁) was evaluated. In the intervention group, AIS (t₂), PIS (t₃), and CR (t₄) were performed in order, with RT measurement after each step. In the control group, RT was assessed at the same time points without the intervention. Results: A complete reduction of the tendon was not achieved in any of the shoulders. Mean maximum lateralization was 6.7 ± 1.30 mm, with no significant differences between groups. In the intervention group, the overall IS procedure reduced RT about 47.0% (t₁ vs t₄: 38.7 ± 3.9 vs 20.5 ± 12.3 N; P < .001). AIS reduced RT significantly (t₁ vs t₂: 38.7 ± 3.9 vs 27.4 ± 10.5 N; P < .001), whereas subsequent PIS (t₂ vs t₃: 27.4 ± 10.5 vs 23.2 ± 12.4 N; P = .27) and CR (t₃ vs t₄: 23.2 ± 12.4 vs 20.5 ± 12.3 N; P = .655) did not additionally reduce tension. Comparison between groups at t₄ revealed a reduction of RT of about 47.8% (control vs intervention: 39.3 ± 4.0 vs 20.5 ± 12.3 N; P < .001). Conclusion: The IS procedure reduces RT of the supraspinatus tendon in human cadaveric shoulders. However, performing PIS and CR subsequent to AIS does not reduce tension additionally. Clinical Relevance: These findings provide surgeons with a biomechanical rationale regarding the efficacy of the IS procedure.