No abstract

Diagnostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

No abstract

Context:Pectoralis major tendon ruptures are becoming increasingly common due to the growing prevalence of active lifestyles. Studies investigating the efficacy of pectoralis major tendon repair have limited sample sizes and offer mixed results, while existing reviews do not explore postoperative activity outcomes for patients.Objective:To summarize and synthesize the clinical outcomes and rate of return to activity after isolated pectoralis major tendon repair.Data Sources:Four databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, and CINAHL) were searched from database inception through March 7, 2018.Study Selection:Studies reporting outcomes of isolated pectoralis major tendon repair for pectoralis major tendon rupture were included.Study Design:Systematic review.Level of Evidence:Level 4.Data Extraction:Data including patient demographics, intervention details, and clinical outcomes were extracted. The methodological quality of included studies was evaluated.Results:Of 2332 retrieved articles, 18 studies were included, with a total of 536 patients. A majority (90%; 134/149) of patients undergoing pectoralis major tendon repair successfully returned to sport at a mean 6.1 ± 1.7 months postsurgery, of which 74% (95/128) successfully returned to their preinjury level of sport. The majority (95%; 269/284) of patients returned to work at a mean 6.9 ± 1 months. Postsurgically, 81% (83/102) of patients experienced complete pain relief after the surgery, and 19% (21/109) had cosmetic complaints after pectoralis major repair. Of the 10 studies that reported complications, 18% (75/423) of patients had postoperative complications, including reruptures and wound infections; 7% (30/423) of patients required reoperation for their complications.Conclusion:Pectoralis major tendon repair is an effective treatment that results in a high rate of return to sport and work, pain relief, and improved cosmetic appearance, albeit with a significant rate of complication. The evidence supporting all outcomes was limited by the rarity of the injury, the variable surgical techniques, and outcome assessment criteria.

Background: The primary objectives of this study were to evaluate the ability of a posteriorly stepped augmented glenoid component, used in patients with primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis with B2 or B3 glenoid morphology, to correct preoperative retroversion and humeral head subluxation and to identify factors associated with radiographic radiolucency and patient-reported clinical outcomes. Methods: We identified 71 shoulders with B2 or B3 glenoid morphology that underwent anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty with use of a posteriorly stepped augmented glenoid component and with a preoperative 3-dimensional computed tomography (3D-CT) scan and a minimum of 2 years of clinical and radiographic follow-up. The Penn Shoulder Score (PSS), shoulder range of motion, glenoid center-peg osteolysis, and postoperative version and humeral head subluxation were the main outcome variables of interest. Results: Follow-up was a median of 2.4 years (range, 1.9 to 5.7 years); the mean patient age at treatment was 65 ± 7 years (range, 51 to 80 years). PSS, range of motion, humeral head centering, and glenoid version were significantly improved among all patients (p < 0.0001). Patients with persistent posterior subluxation of the humeral head postoperatively had worse preoperative fatty infiltration of the teres minor and greater postoperative component retroversion (p < 0.05). Patients with center-peg osteolysis had more preoperative joint-line medialization and posterior glenoid bone loss (p < 0.05). Patients with more preoperative humeral head posterior subluxation had a lower PSS, adjusting for confounders (p < 0.05). Conclusions: Posteriorly stepped augmented glenoid components can improve pathologic retroversion and posterior subluxation of the humeral head in B2 and B3 glenoids, with significant improvements found in clinical outcome scores at a minimum of 2 years of follow-up in the vast majority of patients. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

No abstract

No abstract

Context:Ankle syndesmotic injuries present a significant challenge for athletes due to prolonged disability and recovery periods. The optimal management of these injuries and rates of return to sport in athletes remains unclear.Objective:The purpose of this study was to evaluate return to sport for athletes after ankle syndesmotic injuries.Data Source:The electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed were searched for relevant studies from database inception to January 15, 2017, and pertinent data were abstracted.Study Selection:Only studies reporting return-to-sport rates after ankle syndesmotic injuries were included.Study Design:Systematic review.Level of Evidence:Level 4.Data Extraction:Two reviewers extracted data from the included studies, which were stored in a standardized collection form (Microsoft Excel). Recorded data included demographics (eg, author, year of publication, study design), descriptive statistics (eg, patient age, percentage male, number of athletes, sample size), and outcomes (eg, time to return to sport, proportion of those who returned to sport, the self-reported questionnaire the Olerud-Molander Ankle Score).Results:A total of 10 studies and 312 patients with ankle syndesmotic injuries were included in this systematic review. The rate of return to preinjury or any injury level of sport after ankle syndesmotic injuries was 93.8% ± 1.2% and 97.6% ± 1.5%, respectively, for the corresponding 7 and 3 studies that reported this characteristic. The mean time to return to sport was 46.4 days (range, 15.4-70 days), with 55.2 ± 15.8 and 41.7 ± 9.8 days for operative and nonoperative management, respectively.Conclusion:This systematic review found a high rate of return to any as well as preinjury level of sport after ankle syndesmotic injury in both operative and nonoperative treatment groups. However, further high-level studies are required to compare operative and nonoperative treatment groups associated with return to sport after ankle syndesmotic injury.