ObjectiveTo evaluate the clinical outcome of arthroscopic rotator cuff fixation and, when present, simultaneous repair of the Bankart lesion caused by traumatic dislocation; and to assess whether the size of the rotator cuff injury caused by traumatic dislocation has any influence on the postoperative clinical outcomes.MethodsThirty-three patients with traumatic shoulder dislocation and complete rotator cuff injury, with at least two years of follow up, were retrospectively evaluated. For analysis purposes, the patients were divided into groups: presence of fixed Bankart lesion or absence of this lesion, and rotator cuff lesions smaller than 3.0 cm (group A) or greater than or equal to 3.0 cm (group B). All the patients underwent arthroscopic repair of the lesions and were evaluated postoperatively by means of the UCLA (University of California at Los Angeles) score and strength measurements.ResultsThe group with Bankart lesion repair had a postoperative UCLA score of 33.96, while the score of the group without Bankart lesion was 33.7, without statistical significance (p = 0.743). Group A had a postoperative UCLA score of 34.35 and group B, 33.15, without statistical significance (p = 0.416).ConclusionThe functional outcomes of the patients who only presented complete rotator cuff tearing after traumatic shoulder dislocation, which underwent arthroscopic repair, were similar to the outcomes of those who presented an associated with a Bankart lesion that was corrected simultaneously with the rotator cuff injury. The extent of the original rotator cuff injury did not alter the functional results in the postoperative evaluation.

No abstract

Resumo Objetivo Realizar a tradução e adaptação cultural à língua portuguesa do Long Head of Biceps Tendon (LHB). Métodos O processo envolveu a produção de traduções por indivíduos com domínio da língua-alvo, retrotraduções de maneira independente, criação de um comitê para comparar as versões original e traduzida, realização de pré-teste com a versão final, e elaboração da versão final. Resultados O questionário foi traduzido e adaptado conforme a metodologia proposta. Na primeira versão em português (VP1), houve divergências na tradução de doze termos. A retrotradução da VP1 apresentou, quando comparada à versão original, divergência em oito termos. A segunda versão em português (VP2), elaborada por um comitê, foi aplicada a um grupo pré-teste constituído por 30 participantes, e ao final chegou-se à terceira versão em português, denominada LHB-pt. Conclusão A tradução e adaptação do LHB foram concluídas com sucesso.

ObjectiveTo assess the clinical and functional results of patients submitted to reverse arthroplasty with a minimum follow-up of one year.MethodsTwenty-two patients submitted to shoulder reverse arthroplasty by the Surgery and Shoulder Rehabilitation Group were retrospectively evaluated with pre and postoperative imaging analysis, analog pain scale, range of motion, and ASES functional score.ResultsOut of 19 (86.3%) patients with preoperative ASES classified as poor/bad, 11 (57.9%) progress to good/excellent after intervention, showing improvement of function, ranging from a mean preoperative ASES score of 22 (± 18.8) to a postoperative mean of 64.8 (± 27.7) (p = 0.031). Regarding the pain, there was an improvement in analog pain scale, presenting a preoperative mean of 7.64 (1–10) and a postoperative mean of 2.09 (0–7; p < 0.001). Regarding mobility, of 22 patients, 15 (68.2%) had preoperative pseudoparalysis and, of these, ten (66.7%) had an active anterior elevation greater than 90° after reverse arthroplasty. In turn, patients without pseudoparalysis had no significant gain in range of motion (p = 0.002). The authors observed active anterior elevation gain, with a preoperative mean of 76° (0–160°) and a postoperative mean of 111° (0–160°; p = 0.002).ConclusionDespite being a relatively new procedure in Brazil, reverse shoulder arthroplasty can be used effectively and safely in patients who were previously without treatment options such as rotator cuff arthropathy and revisions providing pain relief, improvement of function, and mobility of the upper limb.

IntroductionFractures of the diaphysis of the clavicle are common; however, treatment guidelines for this condition are lacking. Surgery is associated with a lower risk of non-union and better functional outcomes but a higher risk of complications. Open reduction and internal fixation with plates and screws are the most commonly performed techniques, but they are associated with paraesthesia in the areas of incisions, extensive surgical exposure and high rates of implant removal. Minimally invasive techniques for treating these fractures have a lower rate of complications. The aim of this study is to evaluate which surgical treatment option (minimally invasive osteosynthesis or open reduction and internal fixation) has better prognosis in terms of complications and reoperations.Methods and analysisThe study proposed is a multicentric, pragmatic, randomised, open-label, superiority clinical trial between minimally invasive osteosynthesis and open reduction and internal fixation for surgical treatment of patients with displaced fractures of the clavicle shaft. In the proposed study, 190 individuals with displaced midshaft clavicle fractures, who require surgery as treatment, will be randomised. The assessment will occur at 2, 6, 12, 24 and 48 weeks, respectively. The primary outcome of the study will be the number of complications and reoperations. For sample size calculation, a moderate effective size between the techniques was considered in a two-tailed test, with 95% confidence and 90% power. Complications include cases of infection, hypertrophic scarring, non-union, refracture, implant failure, hypoesthesia, skin irritation and shoulder pain. Reoperations are defined as the number of surgeries for pseudoarthrosis, implant failure, infection and elective removal of the implant.Ethics and disseminationStudy approved by the institutional ethics committee (number 34249120.9.0000.5505—V.3). The results will be disseminated by publications in peer-reviewed journals and presentations in medical meetings.Trial registration numberRBR-3czz68)/UTN U1111-1257-8953.