Glenoid component failure is the most common complication of total shoulder arthroplasty. Glenoid components fail as a result of their inability to replicate essential properties of the normal glenoid articular surface to achieve durable fixation to the underlying bone, to withstand repeated eccentric loads and glenohumeral translation, and to resist wear and deformation. The possibility of glenoid component failure should be considered whenever a total shoulder arthroplasty has an unsatisfactory result. High-quality radiographs made in the plane of the scapula and in the axillary projection are usually sufficient to evaluate the status of the glenoid component. Failures of prosthetic glenoid arthroplasty can be understood in terms of failure of the component itself, failure of seating, failure of fixation, failure of the glenoid bone, and failure to effectively manage eccentric loading. An understanding of these modes of failure leads to strategies to minimize complications related to prosthetic glenoid arthroplasty.

No abstract

No abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate risk factors for nonunion after femoral nailing of femoral shaft fractures. A case-control study with two to one matching was conducted. Forty-five patients with 46 femoral nonunions (cases) and 92 patients with healed femoral shaft fractures (controls) were identified from our orthopedic trauma registry. All cases and controls were initially managed with reamed, statically locked femoral nails. The characteristics that were significantly different between the two groups were open fracture, delay to weight bearing, and tobacco use. Fracture classification, gender, direction of nail insertion (antegrade vs. retrograde), and Injury Severity Score were not predictive of nonunion. We conclude that open fracture, tobacco use, and delayed weight bearing are risk factors for femoral nonunion after intramedullary nailing for diaphyseal femur fractures.

Commercially funded studies submitted for review were not more likely to conclude with a positive outcome than were nonfunded studies, and studies with a positive outcome were no more likely to be published than were studies with a negative outcome. These findings contradict those of most previous analyses of published (rather than submitted) research. Commercial funding and the country of origin predict publication following peer review beyond what would be expected on the basis of study quality. Studies with a negative outcome, although seemingly superior in quality, fared no better than studies with a positive outcome in the peer-review process; this may result in inflation of apparent treatment effects when the published literature is subjected to meta-analysis.