Summary Background Reoperation rates are high after surgery for hip fractures. We investigated the effect of a sliding hip screw versus cancellous screws on the risk of reoperation and other key outcomes. Methods For this international, multicentre, allocation concealed randomised controlled trial, we enrolled patients aged 50 years or older with a low-energy hip fracture requiring fracture fixation from 81 clinical centres in eight countries. Patients were assigned by minimisation with a centralised computer system to receive a single large-diameter screw with a side-plate (sliding hip screw) or the present standard of care, multiple small-diameter cancellous screws. Surgeons and patients were not blinded but the data analyst, while doing the analyses, remained blinded to treatment groups. The primary outcome was hip reoperation within 24 months after initial surgery to promote fracture healing, relieve pain, treat infection, or improve function. Analyses followed the intention-to-treat principle. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00761813. Findings Between March 3, 2008, and March 31, 2014, we randomly assigned 1108 patients to receive a sliding hip screw (n=557) or cancellous screws (n=551). Reoperations within 24 months did not differ by type of surgical fixation in those included in the primary analysis: 107 (20%) of 542 patients in the sliding hip screw group versus 117 (22%) of 537 patients in the cancellous screws group (hazard ratio [HR] 0.83, 95% CI 0.63–1.09; p=0.18). Avascular necrosis was more common in the sliding hip screw group than in the cancellous screws group (50 patients [9%] vs 28 patients [5%]; HR 1.91, 1.06–3.44; p=0.0319). However, no significant difference was found between the number of medically related adverse events between groups (p=0.82; appendix); these events included pulmonary embolism (two patients [<1%] vs four [1%] patients; p=0.41) and sepsis (seven [1%] vs six [1%]; p=0.79). Interpretation In terms of reoperation rates the sliding hip screw shows no advantage, but some groups of patients (smokers and those with displaced or base of neck fractures) might do better with a sliding hip screw than with cancellous screws. Funding National Institutes of Health, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Stichting NutsOhra, Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development, Physicians’ Services Incorporated.

Using a graft for an anatomic bridging rotator cuff repair results in improved function on objective testing and may be functionally better than nonanatomic or partial repair of large to massive rotator cuff tears. Allograft or xenograft techniques appear to be favorable options, given demonstrated functional improvement, imaging-supported graft survival, and lack of harvest complication risk. More high-quality randomized controlled studies are needed to further assess this technique.

Arthroscopic anatomic glenoid reconstruction via distal tibial allograft showed similar bony union but higher resorption compared with coracoid autograft. Even so, no statistically significant difference was found between the 2 procedures regarding final graft surface area, the size of grafts, and the anteroposterior dimensions of the reconstructed glenoids. These short-term results suggest that distal tibial allografts can be used as an alternative to coracoid autograft in the recreation of glenoid bony morphologic features.

Background:The results of arthroscopic anterior labral repair have demonstrated high failure rates in patients with significant glenoid bone loss. Several reconstruction procedures using a bone graft have been developed to overcome bone loss.Purpose:The primary objective of this study was to generate a safety profile for arthroscopic anatomic glenoid reconstruction using a distal tibial allograft. The secondary objective was to evaluate the radiological outcomes of patients who underwent this procedure.Study Design:Case series; Level of evidence, 4.Methods:This retrospective review included the medical charts and diagnostic images of 42 consecutive patients who underwent arthroscopic shoulder stabilization by means of capsule-labral reattachment and bony augmentation with a distal tibial allograft. The safety profile was measured by detecting intraoperative or postoperative complications, including neurovascular (nerves and blood vessels) injuries, bleeding, infections, and dislocations. A radiological evaluation was conducted by assessing computed tomography (CT) scans obtained preoperatively and at approximately 6 months postoperatively.Results:A total of 42 patients (29 male, 13 female) with a mean age of 26.73 ± 9.01 years were included. An excellent safety profile was observed, with no intraoperative complications, neurovascular injuries, adverse events, bleeding, or infections. CT bone scans were obtained for 31 patients, and the mean follow-up for CT scanning (to measure resorption and union) was 6.31 ± 1.20 months (range, 6-7.5 months). There were no cases of nonunion or partial union. Thirteen patients (42%) had no resorption, whereas 13 (42%) and 5 (16%) patents had <50% and ≥50% resorption, respectively.Conclusion:Arthroscopic shoulder stabilization with distal tibial allograft reconstruction is a safe operative procedure with a minimal risk to neurovascular structures. Most patients had a healed allograft, but 16% of patients had ≥50% resorption on CT at 6 months. Studies with a longer follow-up are recommended for better assessment of the safety profile.

No abstract