Background: Rotator cuff tendinopathy (RCT) is a widespread musculoskeletal disorder and a primary cause of shoulder pain and limited function. The resulting pain and limited functionality have a detrimental impact on the overall quality of life. The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review of the effects of extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) for RCT. Methods: The literature search was conducted on the following databases from inception to February 20, 2024: PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, Scopus, MEDLINE, EMBASE, EBSCO, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) were checked to identify the potential studies exploring the effect of ESWT for the treatment of Rotator cuff tendinopathy (Calcification or non-calcification), control group for sham, other treatments (including placebo), without restriction of date, language. Two researchers independently screened literature, extracted data, evaluated the risk of bias in the included studies, and performed meta-analysis using RevMan 5.3 software. Results: A total of 16 RCTs with 1093 patients were included. The results showed that compared with the control group, ESWT for pain score Visual Analogue Scale/Score (VAS) (SMD = -1.95, 95% CI -2.47, -1.41, P < 0.00001), function score Constant-Murley score (CMS) (SMD = 1.30, 95% CI 0.67, 1.92, P < 0.00001), University of California Los Angeles score (UCLA) (SMD = 2.69, 95% CI 1.64, 3.74, P < 0.00001), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons form (ASES) (SMD = 1.29, 95% CI 0.93, 1.65, P < 0.00001), Range of motion (ROM) External rotation (SMD = 1.00, 95% CI 0.29, 1.72, P = 0.02), Total effective rate (TER) (OR = 3.64, 95% CI 1.85, 7.14, P = 0.0002), the differences in the above results were statistically significant. But ROM-Abduction (SMD = 0.72, 95% CI -0.22, 1.66, P = 0.13), the difference was not statistically significant. Conclusion: Currently limited evidence suggests that, compared with the control group, ESWT can provide better pain relief, functional recovery, and maintenance of function in patients with RCT.

Background: Some studies have advocated the use of suture button fixation during Bristow-Latarjet surgery to reduce complications associated with screw fixation. However, data comparing these fixation methods are relatively incomplete. Purpose: To investigate the efficacy of modified arthroscopic Bristow-Latarjet surgery and compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes using screw versus suture button fixation. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: We evaluated 136 patients with traumatic anterior shoulder instability who underwent the modified arthroscopic Bristow-Latarjet surgery between June 2015 and February 2018. Of these patients, 117 who met the inclusion criteria were enrolled at a mean follow-up of 3.3 ± 0.7 years. Shoulders were separated into 2 groups based on fixation technique: screw fixation (group A; n = 63) or suture button fixation (group B; n = 54). Computed tomography imaging findings and clinical results were assessed preoperatively; immediately after operation; and postoperatively at 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, and final follow-up. Results: There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of postoperative clinical scores, the level of return to sports, range of motion, graft position, or reoperation rates. Bone healing was observed in 97.4% of the cases overall (114/117), with 98.4% bone union in group A and 96.3% in group B at final follow-up. Bone absorption was more common in group A (n = 30; 47.6%) compared with group B (n = 10; 18.5%) ( P = .003). There were no hardware-related complications in group B, compared with 7.9% of patients in group A ( P = .034). One patient in group B had a recurrent dislocation due to an unexpected event, and there were no recurrent dislocations in group A. Conclusion: After the modified arthroscopic Bristow-Latarjet procedure, both suture button and screw fixation methods demonstrated high bony healing rates and low risk of recurrence. Less coracoid graft resorption and no hardware-related complications were seen with suture button fixation.

Background: The prevalence of nonunion after the Latarjet procedure remains high. The purpose of the present study was to investigate healing and clinical outcomes after a novel arthroscopic coracoid process transfer procedure. Methods: Sixty-three patients who underwent the arthroscopic inlay Bristow procedure combined with Bankart repair were identified, and 51 patients who met the inclusion criteria were enrolled in this study. The key feature of this technique was that the coracoid process was trimmed and fixed into a trough (5 to 10 mm deep) in the glenoid neck with a metal screw. Bone graft union and positioning accuracy were assessed with use of postoperative computed tomography (CT) imaging. Clinical examinations, return to sport, and functional scores (American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons [ASES] and Rowe scores) were recorded. Results: The mean duration of follow-up (and standard deviation) was 41.5 ± 7.7 months (range, 36 to 48 months). Postoperative CT scans showed that the position of coracoid graft was at 4:10 (from 3:50 to 5:00) (referencing the right shoulder) in the sagittal view. The α angle was 16.4° ± 9.5°, with 4 (7.8%) of 51 screws being over-angulated (α > 25°). On the axial view, the graft position was considered to be flush in 33 patients (64.7%), medial in 11 (21.6%), congruent in 7 (13.7%), and lateral or too medial in none. At 1 year, the coracoid graft had healed in 49 patients (96.1%) and had failed to unite in 2 patients. CT scanning, performed for 47 patients, showed grade-0 osteolysis in 9 patients, grade-1 osteolysis in 21 patients, and grade-2 osteolysis in 17 patients. At the time of the latest follow-up, there was a significant increase in the Rowe score (from 35.5 ± 8.3 to 95.7 ± 7.2) and the ASES score (from 71.2 ± 9.7 to 91.5 ± 4.4), and 87.0% of patients were able to return to sport. No arthropathy was observed in any patient. Conclusions: After a minimum 3-year follow-up, the arthroscopic inlay Bristow procedure resulted in a high rate of graft healing, excellent clinical outcomes, and a high rate of return to sports. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.