Since the introduction of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) in 1987 (in Europe) and 2004 (in the United States), the number of RTSAs performed annually has increased. Although the main indication for RTSA has been rotator cuff tears, indications have expanded to include several shoulder conditions, many of which involve dysfunction of the rotator cuff. RTSA complications have been reported to affect 19% to 68% of patients and include acromial fracture, haematoma, infection, instability, mechanical baseplate failure, neurological injury, periprosthetic fracture and scapular notching. Current controversies in RTSA include optimal baseplate positioning, humeral neck-shaft angle (135° versus 155°), glenosphere placement (medial, lateral or bony increased offset RTSA) and subscapularis repair. Improvements in prosthesis design, surgeon experience and clinical results will need to occur to optimize this treatment for many shoulder conditions. Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2018;3:58–69 DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.3.170044

There are few studies that compare the cadaver dissections with the medical simulators in means of talent improvement. Therefore, the aim of this study is to find out if using cadaver dissections is still the golden standard for surgical training or using the medical simulators in surgery could replace cadaver dissections. Material / Methods: The study is conducted during the European Orthopaedics & Traumatology Education Platform accredited Shoulder Club International Cadaver Course including a number of 34 orthopedics trainees. The participants were randomly divided into two groups to be trained with the simulator (Group 1) and on cadavers (Group 2), followed by a test performed on shoulder arthroscopy simulator (Virtamed ArthroSTM, Switzerland). There was no conflict of interest before, during, or after the study. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. Group 2 had statistically significant higher Simulation Overview Procedure Time values than Group 1 (p<0.05) (Table 3), the meaning of which is: Participants trained with the simulator completed the given tasks in a shorter period of time. Group 2 had statistically significant higher Scratching of Humerus Cartilage values than Group 1 (p<0.05) (Table 4), which means: Participants trained with simulation has less scratching done on the humerus cartilage than the participants trained on a cadaver. To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first one to compare VR Simulators with cadavers for surgical education in an objective manner, while using qualitative and quantitative data. According to this study, it is possible to state that VR Simulators are just as effective as cadavers in means of training subjects. As medical education will face a total change all around the world after the COVID-19 pandemic, this study has the potential to be an important guide during and after this period.

The rotator cable and rotator interval are among the most recent topics of interest in current shoulder literature. Most of the research has been published in the last two decades and our understanding about the importance of these anatomical structures has improved with biomechanical studies, which changed the pre- and intra-operative approaches of shoulder surgeons to rotator cuff tears in symptomatic patients. The rotator cable is a thick fibrous bundle that carries the applied forces to the rotator cuff like a ‘suspension bridge’. Tears including this weight-bearing bridge result in more symptoms. On the other hand, the rotator interval is more like a protective cover consisting of multiple layers of ligaments and the capsule rather than a single anatomical formation like the rotator cable. Advances in our knowledge about the rotator interval demonstrate that even basic anatomical structures often have greater importance than we may have understood. Misdiagnosis of these two important structures may lead to persistent symptoms. Furthermore, some distinct rotator cuff tear patterns can be associated with concomitant rotator interval injuries because of the anatomical proximity of these two anatomical regions. We summarize these two important structures from the aspect of anatomy, biomechanics, radiology and clinical importance in a review of the literature. Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2019;4:56-62. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.4.170071.

Pinar Yilgor Huri, PhD, Seren Hamsici, MSc, Emre Ergene, MSc, Gazi Huri, MD, and Mahmut Nedim Doral, MD. Knee Surg Relat Res 1999;0:. https://doi.org/10.5792/ksrr.17.061

Background: The current standard of treatment of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) is reconstruction (ACLR). This technique has some disadvantages: poor proprioception, donor site morbidity and the inability to restore joint kinematics. ACL repair could be an alternative treatment. The purpose of the study was to compare the stability and the function after ACL primary repair versus single-bundle ACLR. Methods: In a retrospective study, 12 patients underwent primary ACL repair with internal bracing, 15 patients underwent standard ACLR. Follow-up examinations were evaluated at up to 2 years postoperatively. One patient in the ACL repair group was lost to follow-up due to re-rupture. The absolute value of anterior tibial translation (ATT) and the side-to-side difference in the same patient (ΔATT) were evaluated using the GNRB arthrometer. The Lysholm knee scoring was obtained. Re-ruptures and other complications were recorded. Results: Anterior tibial translation (ATT) was significantly decreased in the ACL repair group compared with the ACLR group (5.31 mm vs. 7.18 mm, respectively; p = 0.0137). Arthrometric measurements demonstrated a mean side-to-side difference (ΔATT) 1.87 (range 0.2 to 4.9) mm significantly decreased compared to ACLR 3.36 (range 1.2–5.6 mm; p = 0.0107). The mean Lysholm score was 85.3 points in the ACL repair group and 89.9 in ACLR group. No significant differences between ACL repair and ACLR were found for the Lysholm score. There was no association between AP laxity and clinical outcomes. There were two complications in the internal bracing group: one patient had re-rupture and was treated by ACLR, another had limited extension and had arthroscopic debridement. Conclusions: Anterior tibial translation was significantly decreased after ACL repair. Additionally, the functional results after ACL repair with internal bracing were comparable with those after ACLR. It should be noted that the two complications occurred. The current study supports further development of ACL repair techniques.