The increase in national rates of rotator cuff repair over the last decade has been dramatic, particularly for arthroscopic assisted repair.

No abstract

Background Management of the cuff-deficient arthritic shoulder has long been challenging. Early unconstrained shoulder arthroplasty systems were associated with high complication and implant failure rates. The evolution toward the modern reverse shoulder arthroplasty includes many variables of constrained shoulder arthroplasty designs. Questions/purposes This review explores the development of reverse shoulder arthroplasty, specifically describing (1) the evolution of reverse shoulder arthroplasty designs, (2) the biomechanical variations in the evolution of this arthroplasty, and (3) the current issues relevant to reverse shoulder arthroplasty today. Methods Using a PubMed search, the literature was explored for articles addressing reverse shoulder arthroplasty, focusing on those papers with historical context. Results Results of the early designs were apparently poor, although they were not subjected to rigorous clinical research and usually reported only in secondary literature. We identified a trend of glenoid component failure in the early reverse designs. This trend was recognized and reported by authors as the reverse shoulder evolved.Authors reported greater pain relief and better function in reverse shoulder arthroplasty with the fundamental change of Grammont's design (moving the center of rotation medially and distally). However, current reports suggest lingering concerns and challenges with today's designs. Conclusions The history of reverse shoulder arthroplasty involves the designs of many forward-thinking surgeons. Many of these highly constrained systems failed, although more recent designs have demonstrated improved longevity and implant performance. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty requires ongoing study, with challenges and controversies remaining around present-day designs.

No abstract

No abstract

"Impingement syndrome" is a common diagnostic label for patients presenting with shoulder pain. Historically, it was believed to be due to compression of the rotator cuff tendons beneath the acromion. It has become evident that "impingement syndrome" is not likely an isolated condition that can be easily diagnosed with clinical tests or most successfully treated surgically. Rather, it is likely a complex of conditions involving a combination of intrinsic and extrinsic factors. A mechanical impingement phenomenon as an etiologic mechanism of rotator cuff disease may be distinct from the broad diagnostic label of "impingement syndrome". Acknowledging the concepts of mechanical impingement and movement-related impairments may better suit the diagnostic and interventional continuum as they support the existence of potentially modifiable impairments within the conservative treatment paradigm. Therefore, it is advocated that the clinical diagnosis of "impingement syndrome" be eliminated as it is no more informative than the diagnosis of "anterior shoulder pain". While both terms are ambiguous, the latter is less likely to presume an anatomical tissue pathology that may be difficult to isolate either with a clinical examination or with diagnostic imaging and may prevent potentially inappropriate surgical interventions. We further recommend investigation of mechanical impingement and movement patterns as potential mechanisms for the development of shoulder pain, but clearly distinguished from a clinical diagnostic label of "impingement syndrome". For shoulder researchers, we recommend investigations of homogenous patient groups with accurately defined specific pathologies, or with subgrouping or classification based on specific movement deviations. Diagnostic labels based on the movement system may allow more effective subgrouping of patients to guide treatment strategies.

"Intermediate outcomes following percutaneous fixation of proximal humeral fractures." The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery.94,13. 1223-1228. (2012

BackgroundSingle-injection interscalene brachial plexus blocks are used for analgesia for rotator cuff repair (RCR) but have limited duration. The value of adding liposomal bupivacaine (LB) to prolong single-injection interscalene blocks is unclear. The purpose of this trial is to evaluate the addition of LB to regular bupivacaine interscalene blocks for patients undergoing arthroscopic RCR.MethodsIn this prospective, randomized trial, 70 patients undergoing primary RCR with equal group allocation were randomized by random number generator to receive an interscalene block with 20 mL of 0.5% bupivacaine or 10 mL 0.5% bupivacaine plus 133 mg LB. The primary outcome was cumulative opioid consumption within 72 hours of the procedure. Secondary outcomes included maximum pain scores and quality of recovery 15 survey scores.Results70 of the 80 randomized patients were included in final analysis following exclusion for protocol violations and loss to follow-up. Cumulative opioid consumption (oral morphine equivalents) within 72 hours in patients receiving LB was a median (IQR) of 31.9 mg (0, 73.1) compared with 45.0 mg (15.0, 108.8) among patients receiving bupivacaine alone (p=0.312). Patients receiving LB demonstrated mixed results regarding worst pain scores with improvements at 24 hours and 72 hours, but not 48 hours.ConclusionsLB added to bupivacaine interscalene blocks does not reduce opioid consumption within 72 hours following arthroscopic RCR.Trial registration numberNCT03587584.