Background: The use of reverse shoulder arthroplasty as a primary and revision implant is increasing. Advances in implant design and preoperative surgical planning allow the management of complex glenoid defects. As the demand for treating severe bone loss increases, custom allograft composites are needed to match the premorbid anatomy. Baseplate composite structural allografts are used in patients with eccentric and centric defects to restore the glenoid joint line. Preserving bone stock is important in younger patients where a revision surgery is expected. The aim of this article is to present the assessment, planning, and indications of femoral head allografting for bony defects of the glenoid. Methods: The preoperative surgical planning and the surgical technique to execute the plan with a baseplate composite graft are detailed. The preliminary clinical and radiological results of 29 shoulders which have undergone this graft planning and surgical technique are discussed. Clinical outcomes included visual analogue score of pain (VAS), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (ASES), Constant–Murley score (CS), satisfaction before and after operation, and active range of motion. Radiological outcomes included graft healing and presence of osteolysis or loosening. Results: The use of composite grafts in this series has shown excellent clinical outcomes, with an overall graft complication rate in complex bone loss cases of 8%. Conclusion: Femoral head structural allografting is a valid and viable surgical option for glenoid bone defects in reverse shoulder arthroplasty.

Background: Proximal humeral bone deficiency in revision shoulder arthroplasty is an emerging and challenging problem as the use of reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) increases. This paper presents a technical note discussing our detailed preoperative planning steps, surgical techniques, and their rationale in carrying out the use of an allograft prosthetic composite (APC) to address proximal humeral bone deficiency in revision RSA. The outcomes of this technique are also presented. This paper also presents a systematic review to further discuss the existing literature on RSA with APCs. Methods: The preoperative surgical planning and the surgical technique employed to execute proximal humeral reconstruction using APC during revision arthroplasty are discussed in the technical note. The preliminary clinical and radiological results of five patients who underwent revision shoulder arthroplasty with proximal humeral reconstruction using APCs are presented. The PRISMA guidelines were followed to perform the systematic review. A systematic search using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases was conducted. All studies involving RSA and APCs were pooled, and the data were extracted and analyzed. Results: A total of 14 studies were eligible for inclusion in the systematic review, with a total of 255 patients and a mean follow-up of 57 months. All studies in the systematic review and the patients included in the author’s case series showed improvements in the level of pain, range of motion, function, and satisfaction. Graft incorporation in the systematic review was 84%. Conclusions: Based on the available literature and the results of our case series, the use of an APC construct is a viable option for proximal humeral bone deficiency in revision shoulder arthroplasty.

Background: A broad arm sling is traditionally applied following shoulder surgery for protection of repair and ‘for comfort’. It has never been proved however that the use of a sling actually leads to reduced pain. The aim of our prospective study was to quantify a patient's immediate post-surgical pain with and without a sling, with the hypothesis being that it is in fact more comfortable not to have it on. Methods: Following surgery, a sling was applied as usual, and a pain score obtained within the first 4 hours. The sling was then removed and the score immediately repeated. The sling was left off until discharge, then used again as dictated by the nature of the surgery performed. Results: The mean pain score prior to sling removal was 4.59. The mean score following sling removal was 3.24, a mean reduction in 10-point Numerical Pain Scale of 1.35 points (p < 0.001). Sixty-two out of 85 patients experienced some reduction in pain after removal of the sling. No patient reported an increase in pain. Discussion: Our study shows that the simple action of allowing the operated arm to rest free of a sling reduces pain in the immediate post-surgical period.