Shoulder & Elbow

Septic arthritis predominantly involves the weight-bearing joints of the hip and knee, which account for nearly 60% of cases.¹ In contrast, the shoulder joint is involved in 10% to 15% of cases, though this number may be higher among intravenous (IV) drug users.² The most common causative organisms are the Staphylococcus species, followed closely by β-hemolytic streptococci, with these 2 groups accounting for more than 90% of all cases.³ The Streptococcus viridans group belongs to normal oral flora residing predominantly on the surface of teeth. Although well known for its ability to colonize heart valves and frequently cause bacterial endocarditis, this group has rarely been associated with septic arthritis. Furthermore, Streptococcus mitis, a subgroup of S viridans, has been implicated even less commonly.

In this article, we report a case of glenohumeral joint septic arthritis caused by S mitis. To our knowledge, such a case has not been previously reported in the English literature. Given the low virulence of this orally based bacterium, treating physicians must maintain clinical suspicion for the organism in the setting of persistent joint effusion and pain in association with periodontal disease or trauma. The patient provided written informed consent for print and electronic publication of this case report.

Case Report

A right-hand-dominant 54-year-old man presented to Dr. Gruson with complaints of persistent right shoulder pain associated with worsening range of motion (ROM). Three weeks earlier, the patient reported being assaulted and noted progressive swelling about the right shoulder. He denied fevers, chills, or prior shoulder problems. Although his past medical history was remarkable for hepatitis C and diabetes, he was not taking any diabetic medications at that time. A review of systems was remarkable for poor dental hygiene, and the patient was missing several teeth, which he said had been knocked out during the assault. Physical examination revealed diffuse tenderness about the right shoulder and severe pain with all passive movement. The shoulder was pseudoparalyzed. There were no subcutaneous collections, wounds, or ecchymosis about the shoulder. Mild calor was noted on the right shoulder relative to the left. Radiographs of the right shoulder showed no acute osseous abnormalities.

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), which was urgently obtained to assess the integrity of the rotator cuff and the location of the effusion, showed a large subacromial and glenohumeral joint effusion as well as diffuse muscular edema (Figures 1A-1C).

Discussion

Staphylococcus aureus is the leading causative organism of septic arthritis, accounting for more than 60% of all cases.⁴ Conversely, the Streptococcus viridans group is rarely implicated in septic arthritis, accounting for <1% of cases.⁴S viridans is part of the commensal oral flora and has low virulence. This heterogeneous group is subdivided into S mitis, S salivarius, S anginosus, S mutans, and S bovis. The S mitis group is further subdivided into S sanguinis (formerly known as S sanguis) and S mitis. Infection by an organism of the S viridans group usually occurs on a previously injured focus, and the organism is a causative agent of bacterial endocarditis.⁵ Reported cases of septic arthritis caused by S viridans have predominantly involved the knee joint—with severe osteoarthritis, poor dental hygiene, and prior IV drug use identified as risk factors.^5-7The shoulder joint is seldom involved in septic arthritis; estimated incidence is under 8%.⁸ Although overall incidence may rise in an increasingly elderly patient population, incidence of shoulder infection remains low.^2,9

The main routes for developing septic arthritis include direct inoculation secondary to penetrating trauma or hematologic spread.¹⁰ Coatsworth and colleagues¹¹ reported on iatrogenic S mitis septic arthritis of a shoulder arthroplasty during ultrasonography-guided aspiration by a technician who was not wearing a mask. Our institutional policy is to perform joint aspiration under strictly sterile conditions, which were adhered to in the present case. We surmise our patient developed transient bacteremia from the loss of several teeth, particularly given his poor dentition. Yombi and colleagues⁵ documented 2 cases of septic arthritis caused by Streptococcus gordonii, a relative of S sanguinis. One involved a previously replaced knee, and the other a native knee joint. Other cases of S viridans group septic arthritis have involved the knee,^6,7,12,13 the sternoclavicular joint,^14-16 and the acromioclavicular joint.¹⁷S sanguinis^6,7,12,15,16 and S gordonii⁵ have been implicated in most cases, and an unspeciated S viridans in others.^13,14,17 Concomitant periodontal disease has been reported in most cases as well,^6,7,12,15 including our patient’s case. In the English-language literature, we found no other reports of S mitis as the causative agent of acute septic glenohumeral joint arthritis from hematogenous spread.

There should be no delay in diagnosing septic arthritis, and infected material should be removed from the joint. In animal models, complete joint destruction occurred only 5 weeks after inoculation with Staphylococcus aureus.¹⁰ Garofalo and colleagues¹⁸ reported a trend toward improved functional outcomes after earlier operative treatment. The choice of open surgical drainage vs repeat needle aspiration seems to be of little consequence, as both have good long-term outcomes, but open surgical drainage seems to result in better long-term functional ROM.^2,9 However, results of a recent study suggested surgical treatment is not always superior to medical treatment for septic arthritis in native joints.¹⁹ In some cases involving S viridans species, treatment consisted of a combination of IV antibiotics and onetime or repeat aspiration;^6,12-15 treatment in the remaining cases was surgical débridement.^5,7,16,17 Given that S viridans is associated with bacterial endocarditis, echocardiography is essential if this organism is to be identified. Medical management and antibiotic treatment should be initiated after consultation with medical and infectious disease specialists.¹⁹We have reported a case of septic shoulder caused by S mitis, a low-virulence organism seldom associated with joint infection. The patient’s infection likely resulted from hematogenous spread from the oral cavity (dentition was poor). Urgent aspiration of the joint and baseline infection laboratory tests are recommended. MRI of the shoulder may show an effusion. Urgent arthroscopic irrigation and débridement can yield good clinical outcomes.

Am J Orthop. 2016;45(6):E343-E346. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2016. All rights reserved.

Septic arthritis predominantly involves the weight-bearing joints of the hip and knee, which account for nearly 60% of cases.¹ In contrast, the shoulder joint is involved in 10% to 15% of cases, though this number may be higher among intravenous (IV) drug users.² The most common causative organisms are the Staphylococcus species, followed closely by β-hemolytic streptococci, with these 2 groups accounting for more than 90% of all cases.³ The Streptococcus viridans group belongs to normal oral flora residing predominantly on the surface of teeth. Although well known for its ability to colonize heart valves and frequently cause bacterial endocarditis, this group has rarely been associated with septic arthritis. Furthermore, Streptococcus mitis, a subgroup of S viridans, has been implicated even less commonly.

In this article, we report a case of glenohumeral joint septic arthritis caused by S mitis. To our knowledge, such a case has not been previously reported in the English literature. Given the low virulence of this orally based bacterium, treating physicians must maintain clinical suspicion for the organism in the setting of persistent joint effusion and pain in association with periodontal disease or trauma. The patient provided written informed consent for print and electronic publication of this case report.

Case Report

A right-hand-dominant 54-year-old man presented to Dr. Gruson with complaints of persistent right shoulder pain associated with worsening range of motion (ROM). Three weeks earlier, the patient reported being assaulted and noted progressive swelling about the right shoulder. He denied fevers, chills, or prior shoulder problems. Although his past medical history was remarkable for hepatitis C and diabetes, he was not taking any diabetic medications at that time. A review of systems was remarkable for poor dental hygiene, and the patient was missing several teeth, which he said had been knocked out during the assault. Physical examination revealed diffuse tenderness about the right shoulder and severe pain with all passive movement. The shoulder was pseudoparalyzed. There were no subcutaneous collections, wounds, or ecchymosis about the shoulder. Mild calor was noted on the right shoulder relative to the left. Radiographs of the right shoulder showed no acute osseous abnormalities.

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), which was urgently obtained to assess the integrity of the rotator cuff and the location of the effusion, showed a large subacromial and glenohumeral joint effusion as well as diffuse muscular edema (Figures 1A-1C).

Discussion

Staphylococcus aureus is the leading causative organism of septic arthritis, accounting for more than 60% of all cases.⁴ Conversely, the Streptococcus viridans group is rarely implicated in septic arthritis, accounting for <1% of cases.⁴S viridans is part of the commensal oral flora and has low virulence. This heterogeneous group is subdivided into S mitis, S salivarius, S anginosus, S mutans, and S bovis. The S mitis group is further subdivided into S sanguinis (formerly known as S sanguis) and S mitis. Infection by an organism of the S viridans group usually occurs on a previously injured focus, and the organism is a causative agent of bacterial endocarditis.⁵ Reported cases of septic arthritis caused by S viridans have predominantly involved the knee joint—with severe osteoarthritis, poor dental hygiene, and prior IV drug use identified as risk factors.^5-7The shoulder joint is seldom involved in septic arthritis; estimated incidence is under 8%.⁸ Although overall incidence may rise in an increasingly elderly patient population, incidence of shoulder infection remains low.^2,9

The main routes for developing septic arthritis include direct inoculation secondary to penetrating trauma or hematologic spread.¹⁰ Coatsworth and colleagues¹¹ reported on iatrogenic S mitis septic arthritis of a shoulder arthroplasty during ultrasonography-guided aspiration by a technician who was not wearing a mask. Our institutional policy is to perform joint aspiration under strictly sterile conditions, which were adhered to in the present case. We surmise our patient developed transient bacteremia from the loss of several teeth, particularly given his poor dentition. Yombi and colleagues⁵ documented 2 cases of septic arthritis caused by Streptococcus gordonii, a relative of S sanguinis. One involved a previously replaced knee, and the other a native knee joint. Other cases of S viridans group septic arthritis have involved the knee,^6,7,12,13 the sternoclavicular joint,^14-16 and the acromioclavicular joint.¹⁷S sanguinis^6,7,12,15,16 and S gordonii⁵ have been implicated in most cases, and an unspeciated S viridans in others.^13,14,17 Concomitant periodontal disease has been reported in most cases as well,^6,7,12,15 including our patient’s case. In the English-language literature, we found no other reports of S mitis as the causative agent of acute septic glenohumeral joint arthritis from hematogenous spread.

There should be no delay in diagnosing septic arthritis, and infected material should be removed from the joint. In animal models, complete joint destruction occurred only 5 weeks after inoculation with Staphylococcus aureus.¹⁰ Garofalo and colleagues¹⁸ reported a trend toward improved functional outcomes after earlier operative treatment. The choice of open surgical drainage vs repeat needle aspiration seems to be of little consequence, as both have good long-term outcomes, but open surgical drainage seems to result in better long-term functional ROM.^2,9 However, results of a recent study suggested surgical treatment is not always superior to medical treatment for septic arthritis in native joints.¹⁹ In some cases involving S viridans species, treatment consisted of a combination of IV antibiotics and onetime or repeat aspiration;^6,12-15 treatment in the remaining cases was surgical débridement.^5,7,16,17 Given that S viridans is associated with bacterial endocarditis, echocardiography is essential if this organism is to be identified. Medical management and antibiotic treatment should be initiated after consultation with medical and infectious disease specialists.¹⁹We have reported a case of septic shoulder caused by S mitis, a low-virulence organism seldom associated with joint infection. The patient’s infection likely resulted from hematogenous spread from the oral cavity (dentition was poor). Urgent aspiration of the joint and baseline infection laboratory tests are recommended. MRI of the shoulder may show an effusion. Urgent arthroscopic irrigation and débridement can yield good clinical outcomes.

Am J Orthop. 2016;45(6):E343-E346. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2016. All rights reserved.

Septic arthritis predominantly involves the weight-bearing joints of the hip and knee, which account for nearly 60% of cases.¹ In contrast, the shoulder joint is involved in 10% to 15% of cases, though this number may be higher among intravenous (IV) drug users.² The most common causative organisms are the Staphylococcus species, followed closely by β-hemolytic streptococci, with these 2 groups accounting for more than 90% of all cases.³ The Streptococcus viridans group belongs to normal oral flora residing predominantly on the surface of teeth. Although well known for its ability to colonize heart valves and frequently cause bacterial endocarditis, this group has rarely been associated with septic arthritis. Furthermore, Streptococcus mitis, a subgroup of S viridans, has been implicated even less commonly.

In this article, we report a case of glenohumeral joint septic arthritis caused by S mitis. To our knowledge, such a case has not been previously reported in the English literature. Given the low virulence of this orally based bacterium, treating physicians must maintain clinical suspicion for the organism in the setting of persistent joint effusion and pain in association with periodontal disease or trauma. The patient provided written informed consent for print and electronic publication of this case report.

Case Report

A right-hand-dominant 54-year-old man presented to Dr. Gruson with complaints of persistent right shoulder pain associated with worsening range of motion (ROM). Three weeks earlier, the patient reported being assaulted and noted progressive swelling about the right shoulder. He denied fevers, chills, or prior shoulder problems. Although his past medical history was remarkable for hepatitis C and diabetes, he was not taking any diabetic medications at that time. A review of systems was remarkable for poor dental hygiene, and the patient was missing several teeth, which he said had been knocked out during the assault. Physical examination revealed diffuse tenderness about the right shoulder and severe pain with all passive movement. The shoulder was pseudoparalyzed. There were no subcutaneous collections, wounds, or ecchymosis about the shoulder. Mild calor was noted on the right shoulder relative to the left. Radiographs of the right shoulder showed no acute osseous abnormalities.

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), which was urgently obtained to assess the integrity of the rotator cuff and the location of the effusion, showed a large subacromial and glenohumeral joint effusion as well as diffuse muscular edema (Figures 1A-1C).

Discussion

Staphylococcus aureus is the leading causative organism of septic arthritis, accounting for more than 60% of all cases.⁴ Conversely, the Streptococcus viridans group is rarely implicated in septic arthritis, accounting for <1% of cases.⁴S viridans is part of the commensal oral flora and has low virulence. This heterogeneous group is subdivided into S mitis, S salivarius, S anginosus, S mutans, and S bovis. The S mitis group is further subdivided into S sanguinis (formerly known as S sanguis) and S mitis. Infection by an organism of the S viridans group usually occurs on a previously injured focus, and the organism is a causative agent of bacterial endocarditis.⁵ Reported cases of septic arthritis caused by S viridans have predominantly involved the knee joint—with severe osteoarthritis, poor dental hygiene, and prior IV drug use identified as risk factors.^5-7The shoulder joint is seldom involved in septic arthritis; estimated incidence is under 8%.⁸ Although overall incidence may rise in an increasingly elderly patient population, incidence of shoulder infection remains low.^2,9

The main routes for developing septic arthritis include direct inoculation secondary to penetrating trauma or hematologic spread.¹⁰ Coatsworth and colleagues¹¹ reported on iatrogenic S mitis septic arthritis of a shoulder arthroplasty during ultrasonography-guided aspiration by a technician who was not wearing a mask. Our institutional policy is to perform joint aspiration under strictly sterile conditions, which were adhered to in the present case. We surmise our patient developed transient bacteremia from the loss of several teeth, particularly given his poor dentition. Yombi and colleagues⁵ documented 2 cases of septic arthritis caused by Streptococcus gordonii, a relative of S sanguinis. One involved a previously replaced knee, and the other a native knee joint. Other cases of S viridans group septic arthritis have involved the knee,^6,7,12,13 the sternoclavicular joint,^14-16 and the acromioclavicular joint.¹⁷S sanguinis^6,7,12,15,16 and S gordonii⁵ have been implicated in most cases, and an unspeciated S viridans in others.^13,14,17 Concomitant periodontal disease has been reported in most cases as well,^6,7,12,15 including our patient’s case. In the English-language literature, we found no other reports of S mitis as the causative agent of acute septic glenohumeral joint arthritis from hematogenous spread.

There should be no delay in diagnosing septic arthritis, and infected material should be removed from the joint. In animal models, complete joint destruction occurred only 5 weeks after inoculation with Staphylococcus aureus.¹⁰ Garofalo and colleagues¹⁸ reported a trend toward improved functional outcomes after earlier operative treatment. The choice of open surgical drainage vs repeat needle aspiration seems to be of little consequence, as both have good long-term outcomes, but open surgical drainage seems to result in better long-term functional ROM.^2,9 However, results of a recent study suggested surgical treatment is not always superior to medical treatment for septic arthritis in native joints.¹⁹ In some cases involving S viridans species, treatment consisted of a combination of IV antibiotics and onetime or repeat aspiration;^6,12-15 treatment in the remaining cases was surgical débridement.^5,7,16,17 Given that S viridans is associated with bacterial endocarditis, echocardiography is essential if this organism is to be identified. Medical management and antibiotic treatment should be initiated after consultation with medical and infectious disease specialists.¹⁹We have reported a case of septic shoulder caused by S mitis, a low-virulence organism seldom associated with joint infection. The patient’s infection likely resulted from hematogenous spread from the oral cavity (dentition was poor). Urgent aspiration of the joint and baseline infection laboratory tests are recommended. MRI of the shoulder may show an effusion. Urgent arthroscopic irrigation and débridement can yield good clinical outcomes.

Am J Orthop. 2016;45(6):E343-E346. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2016. All rights reserved.

People who develop knee pain associated with osteoarthritis often subsequently develop pain in other joints, according to a study of two observational, community-based cohorts that could not discern any pattern of new pain sites.

In the “first investigation of the association of knee pain with pain in multiple other sites,” David T. Felson, MD, of Boston University and his colleagues reported that the regions where pain developed after first appearing in the knee varied from person to person and occurred in both upper and lower extremities, which goes against the hypothesis that adjacent joints are most often affected by knee pain.

The study involved patients from the MOST (Multicenter Osteoarthritis Study) trial, including 281 with knee pain at the index visit (168 unilaterally) and 852 without, as well as patients from OAI (the Osteoarthritis Initiative), including 412 with knee pain at the index visit (241 unilaterally), and 1,941 without. The investigators assessed the patients’ data for 14 total joints outside of the knees: 2 each of feet, ankles, hips, hands, wrists, elbows, and shoulders (Arthritis Rheumatol. 2016 Sep 2. doi: 10.1002/art.39848).

Patients with new-onset knee pain at the index visit reported a mean of 2.3 painful joints outside the knee, compared with a significantly lower number of 1.3 reported by those without knee pain. The mean number of nonknee joints with pain was higher among patients with bilateral knee pain, compared with unilateral knee pain. The percentage of patients who reported pain outside the knee rose with the number of painful knees: 80% for two, 64% for one, and 50% for none.

The patients who developed new unilateral knee pain at the index visit also experienced an increase in prevalent joint pain in multiple joints in upper- and lower-extremity sites. In particular, the investigators noted that ipsilateral prevalent hip joint pain, which they characterized as pain in the groin or front of the thigh, was more than twice as likely to occur among those with new unilateral knee pain at the index visit, but the odds for contralateral hip joint pain did not reach statistical significance. The comparisons were adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, depression at the index visit, study (MOST or OAI), and count of painful upper and lower limb joints at the index visit (excluding knees).

When examining only patients with new-onset joint pain outside of the knee, the odds of patients with new knee pain to later develop new-onset joint pain outside the knee were 30% higher than for those without knee pain. Patients with new knee pain had a mean 2.6 new painful joints out of 12.1 eligible joints, compared with 2.0 new painful joints in those without knee pain out of 12.7 eligible joints. (Joint regions with prevalent symptoms at the index visit were excluded as incident painful sites.) Patients with knee pain also had a consistently higher rate of new-onset pain in nonknee joints when compared with patients without knee pain in at least half of the follow-up visits over the course of the MOST and OAI studies. Sensitivity analyses indicated that the association between knee pain and subsequent pain in other joints was not driven by the inclusion of patients with widespread pain.

“There was no clear-cut predilection for pain in any specific lower-extremity joint region,” the investigators wrote.

The investigators noted that other researchers have suggested that patients with knee pain may be at higher risk for lower-extremity joint pain because of changes to their gait that gradually cause damage to other joints, but evidence in this study doesn’t “necessarily support the argument that in persons with knee pain, aberrant loading by altered movement patterns induces pain in only nearby joints. Our findings suggest that the sites affected are more than just hip and ankle and that there is no special predilection for pain in these locations.”

While the investigators cannot differentiate underlying mechanisms for their study’s finding of multiple co-occurring sites of joint pain in people with new-onset knee pain, they suggested that it “supports either a predilection for osteoarthritic changes at multiple joint sites and/or raises the possibility that nervous system–driven pain sensitization increases the risk not only of widespread pain but even of regional pain. Since symptomatic OA is unusual in some of these painful sites (e.g., elbow, shoulder, ankle), pain sensitization would seem a more likely explanation.”

Some of the study’s limitations described by the investigators included the uncertainty surrounding whether new-onset knee pain was truly new onset or whether it was a reoccurrence, and also the fact that most of the people in the two cohorts had multiple sites of joint pain at both the baseline and the index visit and there were too few people with no sites of pain outside the knee to carry out subanalyses in that group, which “speaks to the high prevalence of multiple joint pains in older adult cohorts.”

The research was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. The authors had no disclosures to report.

[email protected]

People who develop knee pain associated with osteoarthritis often subsequently develop pain in other joints, according to a study of two observational, community-based cohorts that could not discern any pattern of new pain sites.

In the “first investigation of the association of knee pain with pain in multiple other sites,” David T. Felson, MD, of Boston University and his colleagues reported that the regions where pain developed after first appearing in the knee varied from person to person and occurred in both upper and lower extremities, which goes against the hypothesis that adjacent joints are most often affected by knee pain.

The study involved patients from the MOST (Multicenter Osteoarthritis Study) trial, including 281 with knee pain at the index visit (168 unilaterally) and 852 without, as well as patients from OAI (the Osteoarthritis Initiative), including 412 with knee pain at the index visit (241 unilaterally), and 1,941 without. The investigators assessed the patients’ data for 14 total joints outside of the knees: 2 each of feet, ankles, hips, hands, wrists, elbows, and shoulders (Arthritis Rheumatol. 2016 Sep 2. doi: 10.1002/art.39848).

Patients with new-onset knee pain at the index visit reported a mean of 2.3 painful joints outside the knee, compared with a significantly lower number of 1.3 reported by those without knee pain. The mean number of nonknee joints with pain was higher among patients with bilateral knee pain, compared with unilateral knee pain. The percentage of patients who reported pain outside the knee rose with the number of painful knees: 80% for two, 64% for one, and 50% for none.

The patients who developed new unilateral knee pain at the index visit also experienced an increase in prevalent joint pain in multiple joints in upper- and lower-extremity sites. In particular, the investigators noted that ipsilateral prevalent hip joint pain, which they characterized as pain in the groin or front of the thigh, was more than twice as likely to occur among those with new unilateral knee pain at the index visit, but the odds for contralateral hip joint pain did not reach statistical significance. The comparisons were adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, depression at the index visit, study (MOST or OAI), and count of painful upper and lower limb joints at the index visit (excluding knees).

When examining only patients with new-onset joint pain outside of the knee, the odds of patients with new knee pain to later develop new-onset joint pain outside the knee were 30% higher than for those without knee pain. Patients with new knee pain had a mean 2.6 new painful joints out of 12.1 eligible joints, compared with 2.0 new painful joints in those without knee pain out of 12.7 eligible joints. (Joint regions with prevalent symptoms at the index visit were excluded as incident painful sites.) Patients with knee pain also had a consistently higher rate of new-onset pain in nonknee joints when compared with patients without knee pain in at least half of the follow-up visits over the course of the MOST and OAI studies. Sensitivity analyses indicated that the association between knee pain and subsequent pain in other joints was not driven by the inclusion of patients with widespread pain.

“There was no clear-cut predilection for pain in any specific lower-extremity joint region,” the investigators wrote.

The investigators noted that other researchers have suggested that patients with knee pain may be at higher risk for lower-extremity joint pain because of changes to their gait that gradually cause damage to other joints, but evidence in this study doesn’t “necessarily support the argument that in persons with knee pain, aberrant loading by altered movement patterns induces pain in only nearby joints. Our findings suggest that the sites affected are more than just hip and ankle and that there is no special predilection for pain in these locations.”

While the investigators cannot differentiate underlying mechanisms for their study’s finding of multiple co-occurring sites of joint pain in people with new-onset knee pain, they suggested that it “supports either a predilection for osteoarthritic changes at multiple joint sites and/or raises the possibility that nervous system–driven pain sensitization increases the risk not only of widespread pain but even of regional pain. Since symptomatic OA is unusual in some of these painful sites (e.g., elbow, shoulder, ankle), pain sensitization would seem a more likely explanation.”

Some of the study’s limitations described by the investigators included the uncertainty surrounding whether new-onset knee pain was truly new onset or whether it was a reoccurrence, and also the fact that most of the people in the two cohorts had multiple sites of joint pain at both the baseline and the index visit and there were too few people with no sites of pain outside the knee to carry out subanalyses in that group, which “speaks to the high prevalence of multiple joint pains in older adult cohorts.”

The research was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. The authors had no disclosures to report.

[email protected]

People who develop knee pain associated with osteoarthritis often subsequently develop pain in other joints, according to a study of two observational, community-based cohorts that could not discern any pattern of new pain sites.

In the “first investigation of the association of knee pain with pain in multiple other sites,” David T. Felson, MD, of Boston University and his colleagues reported that the regions where pain developed after first appearing in the knee varied from person to person and occurred in both upper and lower extremities, which goes against the hypothesis that adjacent joints are most often affected by knee pain.

The study involved patients from the MOST (Multicenter Osteoarthritis Study) trial, including 281 with knee pain at the index visit (168 unilaterally) and 852 without, as well as patients from OAI (the Osteoarthritis Initiative), including 412 with knee pain at the index visit (241 unilaterally), and 1,941 without. The investigators assessed the patients’ data for 14 total joints outside of the knees: 2 each of feet, ankles, hips, hands, wrists, elbows, and shoulders (Arthritis Rheumatol. 2016 Sep 2. doi: 10.1002/art.39848).

Patients with new-onset knee pain at the index visit reported a mean of 2.3 painful joints outside the knee, compared with a significantly lower number of 1.3 reported by those without knee pain. The mean number of nonknee joints with pain was higher among patients with bilateral knee pain, compared with unilateral knee pain. The percentage of patients who reported pain outside the knee rose with the number of painful knees: 80% for two, 64% for one, and 50% for none.

The patients who developed new unilateral knee pain at the index visit also experienced an increase in prevalent joint pain in multiple joints in upper- and lower-extremity sites. In particular, the investigators noted that ipsilateral prevalent hip joint pain, which they characterized as pain in the groin or front of the thigh, was more than twice as likely to occur among those with new unilateral knee pain at the index visit, but the odds for contralateral hip joint pain did not reach statistical significance. The comparisons were adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, depression at the index visit, study (MOST or OAI), and count of painful upper and lower limb joints at the index visit (excluding knees).

When examining only patients with new-onset joint pain outside of the knee, the odds of patients with new knee pain to later develop new-onset joint pain outside the knee were 30% higher than for those without knee pain. Patients with new knee pain had a mean 2.6 new painful joints out of 12.1 eligible joints, compared with 2.0 new painful joints in those without knee pain out of 12.7 eligible joints. (Joint regions with prevalent symptoms at the index visit were excluded as incident painful sites.) Patients with knee pain also had a consistently higher rate of new-onset pain in nonknee joints when compared with patients without knee pain in at least half of the follow-up visits over the course of the MOST and OAI studies. Sensitivity analyses indicated that the association between knee pain and subsequent pain in other joints was not driven by the inclusion of patients with widespread pain.

“There was no clear-cut predilection for pain in any specific lower-extremity joint region,” the investigators wrote.

The investigators noted that other researchers have suggested that patients with knee pain may be at higher risk for lower-extremity joint pain because of changes to their gait that gradually cause damage to other joints, but evidence in this study doesn’t “necessarily support the argument that in persons with knee pain, aberrant loading by altered movement patterns induces pain in only nearby joints. Our findings suggest that the sites affected are more than just hip and ankle and that there is no special predilection for pain in these locations.”

While the investigators cannot differentiate underlying mechanisms for their study’s finding of multiple co-occurring sites of joint pain in people with new-onset knee pain, they suggested that it “supports either a predilection for osteoarthritic changes at multiple joint sites and/or raises the possibility that nervous system–driven pain sensitization increases the risk not only of widespread pain but even of regional pain. Since symptomatic OA is unusual in some of these painful sites (e.g., elbow, shoulder, ankle), pain sensitization would seem a more likely explanation.”

Some of the study’s limitations described by the investigators included the uncertainty surrounding whether new-onset knee pain was truly new onset or whether it was a reoccurrence, and also the fact that most of the people in the two cohorts had multiple sites of joint pain at both the baseline and the index visit and there were too few people with no sites of pain outside the knee to carry out subanalyses in that group, which “speaks to the high prevalence of multiple joint pains in older adult cohorts.”

The research was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. The authors had no disclosures to report.

[email protected]

The Ellman¹ classification of partial-thickness rotator cuff tears (PTRCTs) is based on tear location or subtype (A, articular; B, bursal; C, intratendinous) and tear depth (grade 1, <3 mm; grade 2, 3-6 mm; grade 3, >6 mm). Ruotolo and colleagues² reported that the medial-lateral insertion width of the supraspinatus averaged 12.1 mm, and most authors have indicated that tear depth of 6 mm or more represents 50% tendon thickness. Therefore, Ellman grade 3 tears are considered high-grade (>50% thickness).

Advancements in shoulder arthroscopy, imaging modalities, and clinical research have helped refine our understanding of PTRCTs. Classic teaching based on the retrospective study by Weber³ calls for simple débridement of low-grade (<50%) tears and repair of tears thicker than 50%. According to this standard, Ellman grade 1 and 2 tears should be débrided and grade 3 tears repaired. However, Cordasco and colleagues⁴ provided evidence supporting an algorithm reformation based on tear location. In their study, results of simple débridement were significantly worse for Ellman grade 2B PTRCTs than for 2A tears, suggesting low-grade bursal tears should also be repaired. Although their study supported a change in operative management for grade 2 tears, to our knowledge no one has investigated the need for differing surgical treatments for grade 3 subtypes based on tear location.

Several studies have demonstrated the efficacy of arthroscopic completion and repair for high-grade PTRCTs of the supraspinatus.^5-7 Although all these studies addressed articular- and bursal-sided tears, there has been relative silence with respect to the intratendinous subtype. One explanation is that these tears, given their interstitial nature, pose diagnostic challenges. Histologic research has also shown that they can exist in combination with other tears.⁸ Despite such challenges, these tears are well documented. They were identified in the seminal study by Ellman¹ and were the most common PTRCTs encountered in a well-known cadaveric study (N = 249).^9,10 More recently, in 2011, a radiologic study using magnetic resonance arthrography found that 33.8% of PTRCTs were intratendinous (N = 68).¹¹ That study also documented the case of a nonoperatively treated intratendinous tear that progressed to a full-thickness tear within about 6 months.¹¹ Given these facts, it was important for the current PTRCT debate to include an intratendinous group when investigating treatment algorithms for grade 3 tears. Although results of the present study may continue reformation of the 50% algorithm, we hypothesized that arthroscopic completion and repair of all grade 3 PTRCTs will be equally effective, regardless of tear location.

Materials and Methods

After obtaining Institutional Review Board approval for this study, we retrospectively reviewed the operative reports of a fellowship-trained shoulder surgeon for the period 2008–2010. Patients who underwent arthroscopic completion and repair of a supraspinatus tendon PTRCT were identified. Preoperative identification of PTRCT was made on the basis of physical examination and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings (Figures 1–3).

Patients with low-grade PTRCTs of the supraspinatus, identified at time of arthroscopy, were excluded, as were patients with tears that extended into other rotator cuff tendons and patients with previous rotator cuff repair, glenohumeral instability, or adhesive capsulitis.

During the initial appointment, each patient completed a standard questionnaire that included standardized subjective scales evaluating pain and function. A fellowship-trained surgeon then took the patient’s history and performed a physical examination. Postoperative clinical outcome was determined at a minimum of 12 months. Clinical outcomes were assessed with 3 validated outcome measures: visual analog scale (VAS) score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, and Constant score.

Surgical Procedure and Rehabilitation

All procedures were performed with the patient under general anesthesia with or without an interscalene block. The patient was positioned in the upright beach-chair position. Diagnostic arthroscopy was used to assess the rotator cuff and associated pathologic conditions. If impingement was noted, subacromial decompression was performed. An acromioplasty was limited to removal of osteophytic bone. Distal clavicle excision and biceps tenotomy or tenodesis were performed if preoperative evaluation warranted these procedures.

The rotator cuff was assessed from the articular and bursal sides. For articular PTRCTs, a tagging suture was used to identify the lesion from the bursal side. Bursal-sided tears were probed to assess thinning of the tendon and determine tear grade. If preoperative MRI findings suggested an intratendinous tear, a probe was used to confirm thinning of the tendon. An arthroscopic shaver was then carefully used to débride the capsule on either side of the tendon at the location of the suspected tear. The shaver inevitably penetrated the capsule and entered the tear, where any degenerative tissue was further débrided (Figure 4).

Statistical Analysis

Power analysis demonstrated that a sample size of 20 in each group was adequate for detecting a medium to large effect size with 80% power. Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to compare the preoperative and postoperative scores for each outcome measure, and analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the amount of improvement for each of the 3 PTRCT subtypes. Paired t test was used to compare preoperative and postoperative ROM values, and unpaired t tests were used to determine the impact of corticosteroid injections and preoperative PT. For statistical analysis, patients were divided into 2 groups (yes, no) regarding injections and 2 groups (yes, no) regarding PT. Last, multiple linear regression analyses were performed for each outcome measure to determine the impact of potential confounders. Covariates included symptom duration, etiology, age, injection, PT, tear location, percentage of tendon torn (medial-lateral), and tear length (anterior-posterior). P < .05 was considered significant.

Results

Patient Sample and Demographics

Sixty-seven patients underwent arthroscopic repair of a PTRCT—22 grade 3A, 23 grade 3B, and 22 grade 3C. In each of the 3 groups, 20 patients returned for end-of-healing evaluation. Thus, the study population consisted of 60 patients (60 shoulders). The 7 patients who did not return for end-of-healing evaluation or who could not be contacted were excluded from the study.

Table 1 summarizes the key patient demographics. Of the 60 patients, 35 were men and 25 were women.

Range of Motion

The sample as a whole exhibited statistically significant improvement in active ROM (Table 2).

Operative Findings

Operative findings included mean tear thickness of 74% for the sample as a whole and mean anterior-to-posterior tear length of 10.7 mm overall. There was very little variance among the articular, bursal, and intratendinous means with respect to percentage of tear thickness (78.3%, 75.0%, and 68.8%, respectively) and anterior-to-posterior tear thickness (11.5 mm, 11.4 mm, and 9.1 mm, respectively). Each of the 6 tears (3 bursal, 2 articular, 1 intratendinous) that were longer than 15 mm required 2 anchors. Fifty-nine repairs (98%) involved subacromial decompression, 38 (63%) involved acromioclavicular resection, 18 (30%) involved débridement of the superior labrum anterior-to-posterior (SLAP), and 12 (20%) involved biceps tenodesis/tenotomy.

Outcome Measures

In the study population as a whole, and in all 3 tear subtypes, postoperative improvement in VAS, ASES, and Constant scores was statistically significant (Table 3).

Multiple linear regression analyses showed that etiology, symptom duration, and steroid injection were the primary predictors of each outcome. After the other variables were adjusted for, injection (vs noninjection) seemed to be associated with more improvement in ASES (P = .0061), VAS (P = .020), and Constant (P = .067) scores. Insidious (vs traumatic) etiology was significantly associated with more improvement in ASES scores (P = .033) and VAS scores (P = .014) but not Constant scores (P = .50). Longer time from symptom onset to surgery was associated with less improvement, though the coefficient was not statistically significant in any of the models at P = .05. The other possible covariates had no significant impact on outcomes.

Complications

There were no intraoperative or postoperative complications, and there were no incidents of recurrent rotator cuff tear or postoperative stiffness.

Discussion

We investigated the effectiveness of arthroscopic completion and repair of Ellman grade 3 PTRCTs by comparing the functional outcomes for each subtype. Although several studies have analyzed results of PTRCT repair, they all either omitted intratendinous tears or were not grade-specific. In a systematic review, Strauss and colleagues¹³ discussed 4 PTRCT outcome studies^4,6,14,15 in which only articular- and bursal-sided tears were addressed. Of these studies, only 1 (Kamath and colleagues⁶) focused on grade 3 lesions, and the number of bursal tears was insufficient for comparison with the articular tear group. Cordasco and colleagues⁴ limited their study to grade 1 and 2 tears but did not include intratendinous lesions.

In other research, Itoi and Tabata¹⁶ distinguished among the 3 subtypes but did not measure grade. As we did in our study, Deutsch⁵ focused on grade 3 lesions and used the completion-and-repair method, but he did not include intratendinous tears. Porat and colleagues¹⁷ reviewed grade 3 completion-and-repair results but did not compare them by subtype. Last, Uchiyama and colleagues¹⁸ reported strong outcomes for intratendinous tears but did not measure grade and used various surgical methods.

These studies have made important contributions to the ongoing PTRCT discussion, but debate about appropriate operative management persists. To limit the influence of external variables and provide the most exhaustive evidence regarding current PTRCT treatment algorithms, we designed the present study to consider outcomes with all 3 Ellman subtypes, only grade 3 lesions of the supraspinatus, only 1 surgical method, and consistent techniques of only 1 fellowship-trained shoulder surgeon.

Results of this chart review confirmed the findings of other grade 3 PTRCT repair studies. For instance, Koh and colleagues¹⁵ reported excellent results of 38 grade 3B PTRCTs completed to full thickness and repaired. Specifically, their mean ASES and Constant scores improved 34.1 and 23.7 points, respectively. These results are similar to our ASES and Constant score improvements—38.9 and 24.7 points for the group as a whole and 36 and 25.1 points for the grade 3B cohort. In addition, our ASES scores are nearly identical to the preoperative (46.1) and postoperative (82.1) ASES scores found by Kamath and colleagues.⁶ Although the mean ASES and VAS score improvements reported by Deutsch⁵ (51 and 5.7 points, respectively) were slightly better than ours, these results are still comparable and support completion and repair.

Although results of the study by Cordasco and colleagues⁴ support differing surgical treatments of grade 2 tears based on location, the present findings support the established 50% algorithm for all 3 high-grade PTRCTs. The completion-and-repair method not only produced significant improvements for each PTRCT subtype, but, importantly, there was no significant difference among those outcomes. Unlike previous results for grade 2 tears, the present results confirmed the established algorithm for grade 3 tears.

Our multiple linear regression analyses suggested that etiology, longer duration of symptoms, and steroid injections each had a strong impact on outcomes. The literature on these preoperative factors is often conflicting, and our results continue the trend. For instance, in a study of acute rotator cuff tears, Petersen and Murphy¹⁹ studied acute rotator cuff tears and also found tear size had no significant effect on functional outcomes. However, contrary to our findings, they did not find symptom duration to be a significant predictor of results. Also contrary to our findings, Oh and colleagues²⁰ found age and tear size to be significant influences on outcomes for full-thickness tears. The strong correlation of preoperative steroid injection and better outcomes is novel and warrants further investigation.

In this study, we investigated the effectiveness of the completion-and-repair method in treating Ellman grade 3 PTRCTs. Although our findings validate this surgical technique, we acknowledge alternative approaches to high-grade PTRCTs. For instance, the transtendon method, which does not convert PTRCTs to full thickness, has also shown good clinical outcomes.^21-23 In fact, the preoperative and postoperative VAS measures used in our study are nearly identical to those used in an Ellman grade 3A transtendon repair study.¹ However, we agree with Porat and colleagues¹⁷ that the remaining, intact cuff material of PTRCTs is degenerative and may result in poor fixation, increased pain, or retear. In addition, nonoperative treatment typically is attempted before surgery, though little evidence is reported for success specifically in high-grade PTRCTs. One study found that 91% of PTRCT patients were still satisfied 4 years after nonoperative treatment, but it was noted that many of the tears were low-grade.²⁴ To continue an evidence-based discussion on the more effective treatment, we invite advocates of alternative approaches to conduct a similar study on all 3 Ellman grade 3 subtypes.

Study Limitations

Concomitant procedures were not uniform among all patients and therefore may have affected some outcome measurements. Subacromial decompression was nearly universal, as it was performed for surgical visualization in 98% of patients. The additional procedures were also deemed necessary based on the preoperative assessment and arthroscopic findings. Although these procedures may have influenced outcome measurements, similar studies regularly include them as well.^5-7,17 Our minimum 12-month follow-up could be considered a restriction, as other studies have cited a 2-year follow-up threshold.^5-7 However, Strauss and colleagues¹³ endorsed a 12-month standard in their systematic review. Last, about 10% (7/67) of our initial patients were lost to follow-up; this percentage, however, is comparable to what has been reported in other PTRCT studies.^{4-6,14,15,21,22}

Conclusion

Our study findings validate use of the current algorithm for Ellman grade 3 PTRCTs of the supraspinatus and advocate their completion and repair, regardless of tear location.

Acknowledgment: The authors thank Lisa Rein, MS, and Sergey Tarima, PhD, of the Division of Biostatistics, Medical College of Wisconsin, for their help in data analysis and manuscript preparation.


Am J Orthop. 2016;45(5):E254-E260. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2016. All rights reserved.

The Ellman¹ classification of partial-thickness rotator cuff tears (PTRCTs) is based on tear location or subtype (A, articular; B, bursal; C, intratendinous) and tear depth (grade 1, <3 mm; grade 2, 3-6 mm; grade 3, >6 mm). Ruotolo and colleagues² reported that the medial-lateral insertion width of the supraspinatus averaged 12.1 mm, and most authors have indicated that tear depth of 6 mm or more represents 50% tendon thickness. Therefore, Ellman grade 3 tears are considered high-grade (>50% thickness).

Advancements in shoulder arthroscopy, imaging modalities, and clinical research have helped refine our understanding of PTRCTs. Classic teaching based on the retrospective study by Weber³ calls for simple débridement of low-grade (<50%) tears and repair of tears thicker than 50%. According to this standard, Ellman grade 1 and 2 tears should be débrided and grade 3 tears repaired. However, Cordasco and colleagues⁴ provided evidence supporting an algorithm reformation based on tear location. In their study, results of simple débridement were significantly worse for Ellman grade 2B PTRCTs than for 2A tears, suggesting low-grade bursal tears should also be repaired. Although their study supported a change in operative management for grade 2 tears, to our knowledge no one has investigated the need for differing surgical treatments for grade 3 subtypes based on tear location.

Several studies have demonstrated the efficacy of arthroscopic completion and repair for high-grade PTRCTs of the supraspinatus.^5-7 Although all these studies addressed articular- and bursal-sided tears, there has been relative silence with respect to the intratendinous subtype. One explanation is that these tears, given their interstitial nature, pose diagnostic challenges. Histologic research has also shown that they can exist in combination with other tears.⁸ Despite such challenges, these tears are well documented. They were identified in the seminal study by Ellman¹ and were the most common PTRCTs encountered in a well-known cadaveric study (N = 249).^9,10 More recently, in 2011, a radiologic study using magnetic resonance arthrography found that 33.8% of PTRCTs were intratendinous (N = 68).¹¹ That study also documented the case of a nonoperatively treated intratendinous tear that progressed to a full-thickness tear within about 6 months.¹¹ Given these facts, it was important for the current PTRCT debate to include an intratendinous group when investigating treatment algorithms for grade 3 tears. Although results of the present study may continue reformation of the 50% algorithm, we hypothesized that arthroscopic completion and repair of all grade 3 PTRCTs will be equally effective, regardless of tear location.

Materials and Methods

After obtaining Institutional Review Board approval for this study, we retrospectively reviewed the operative reports of a fellowship-trained shoulder surgeon for the period 2008–2010. Patients who underwent arthroscopic completion and repair of a supraspinatus tendon PTRCT were identified. Preoperative identification of PTRCT was made on the basis of physical examination and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings (Figures 1–3).

Patients with low-grade PTRCTs of the supraspinatus, identified at time of arthroscopy, were excluded, as were patients with tears that extended into other rotator cuff tendons and patients with previous rotator cuff repair, glenohumeral instability, or adhesive capsulitis.

During the initial appointment, each patient completed a standard questionnaire that included standardized subjective scales evaluating pain and function. A fellowship-trained surgeon then took the patient’s history and performed a physical examination. Postoperative clinical outcome was determined at a minimum of 12 months. Clinical outcomes were assessed with 3 validated outcome measures: visual analog scale (VAS) score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, and Constant score.

Surgical Procedure and Rehabilitation

All procedures were performed with the patient under general anesthesia with or without an interscalene block. The patient was positioned in the upright beach-chair position. Diagnostic arthroscopy was used to assess the rotator cuff and associated pathologic conditions. If impingement was noted, subacromial decompression was performed. An acromioplasty was limited to removal of osteophytic bone. Distal clavicle excision and biceps tenotomy or tenodesis were performed if preoperative evaluation warranted these procedures.

The rotator cuff was assessed from the articular and bursal sides. For articular PTRCTs, a tagging suture was used to identify the lesion from the bursal side. Bursal-sided tears were probed to assess thinning of the tendon and determine tear grade. If preoperative MRI findings suggested an intratendinous tear, a probe was used to confirm thinning of the tendon. An arthroscopic shaver was then carefully used to débride the capsule on either side of the tendon at the location of the suspected tear. The shaver inevitably penetrated the capsule and entered the tear, where any degenerative tissue was further débrided (Figure 4).

Statistical Analysis

Power analysis demonstrated that a sample size of 20 in each group was adequate for detecting a medium to large effect size with 80% power. Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to compare the preoperative and postoperative scores for each outcome measure, and analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the amount of improvement for each of the 3 PTRCT subtypes. Paired t test was used to compare preoperative and postoperative ROM values, and unpaired t tests were used to determine the impact of corticosteroid injections and preoperative PT. For statistical analysis, patients were divided into 2 groups (yes, no) regarding injections and 2 groups (yes, no) regarding PT. Last, multiple linear regression analyses were performed for each outcome measure to determine the impact of potential confounders. Covariates included symptom duration, etiology, age, injection, PT, tear location, percentage of tendon torn (medial-lateral), and tear length (anterior-posterior). P < .05 was considered significant.

Results

Patient Sample and Demographics

Sixty-seven patients underwent arthroscopic repair of a PTRCT—22 grade 3A, 23 grade 3B, and 22 grade 3C. In each of the 3 groups, 20 patients returned for end-of-healing evaluation. Thus, the study population consisted of 60 patients (60 shoulders). The 7 patients who did not return for end-of-healing evaluation or who could not be contacted were excluded from the study.

Table 1 summarizes the key patient demographics. Of the 60 patients, 35 were men and 25 were women.

Range of Motion

The sample as a whole exhibited statistically significant improvement in active ROM (Table 2).

Operative Findings

Operative findings included mean tear thickness of 74% for the sample as a whole and mean anterior-to-posterior tear length of 10.7 mm overall. There was very little variance among the articular, bursal, and intratendinous means with respect to percentage of tear thickness (78.3%, 75.0%, and 68.8%, respectively) and anterior-to-posterior tear thickness (11.5 mm, 11.4 mm, and 9.1 mm, respectively). Each of the 6 tears (3 bursal, 2 articular, 1 intratendinous) that were longer than 15 mm required 2 anchors. Fifty-nine repairs (98%) involved subacromial decompression, 38 (63%) involved acromioclavicular resection, 18 (30%) involved débridement of the superior labrum anterior-to-posterior (SLAP), and 12 (20%) involved biceps tenodesis/tenotomy.

Outcome Measures

In the study population as a whole, and in all 3 tear subtypes, postoperative improvement in VAS, ASES, and Constant scores was statistically significant (Table 3).

Multiple linear regression analyses showed that etiology, symptom duration, and steroid injection were the primary predictors of each outcome. After the other variables were adjusted for, injection (vs noninjection) seemed to be associated with more improvement in ASES (P = .0061), VAS (P = .020), and Constant (P = .067) scores. Insidious (vs traumatic) etiology was significantly associated with more improvement in ASES scores (P = .033) and VAS scores (P = .014) but not Constant scores (P = .50). Longer time from symptom onset to surgery was associated with less improvement, though the coefficient was not statistically significant in any of the models at P = .05. The other possible covariates had no significant impact on outcomes.

Complications

There were no intraoperative or postoperative complications, and there were no incidents of recurrent rotator cuff tear or postoperative stiffness.

Discussion

We investigated the effectiveness of arthroscopic completion and repair of Ellman grade 3 PTRCTs by comparing the functional outcomes for each subtype. Although several studies have analyzed results of PTRCT repair, they all either omitted intratendinous tears or were not grade-specific. In a systematic review, Strauss and colleagues¹³ discussed 4 PTRCT outcome studies^4,6,14,15 in which only articular- and bursal-sided tears were addressed. Of these studies, only 1 (Kamath and colleagues⁶) focused on grade 3 lesions, and the number of bursal tears was insufficient for comparison with the articular tear group. Cordasco and colleagues⁴ limited their study to grade 1 and 2 tears but did not include intratendinous lesions.

In other research, Itoi and Tabata¹⁶ distinguished among the 3 subtypes but did not measure grade. As we did in our study, Deutsch⁵ focused on grade 3 lesions and used the completion-and-repair method, but he did not include intratendinous tears. Porat and colleagues¹⁷ reviewed grade 3 completion-and-repair results but did not compare them by subtype. Last, Uchiyama and colleagues¹⁸ reported strong outcomes for intratendinous tears but did not measure grade and used various surgical methods.

These studies have made important contributions to the ongoing PTRCT discussion, but debate about appropriate operative management persists. To limit the influence of external variables and provide the most exhaustive evidence regarding current PTRCT treatment algorithms, we designed the present study to consider outcomes with all 3 Ellman subtypes, only grade 3 lesions of the supraspinatus, only 1 surgical method, and consistent techniques of only 1 fellowship-trained shoulder surgeon.

Results of this chart review confirmed the findings of other grade 3 PTRCT repair studies. For instance, Koh and colleagues¹⁵ reported excellent results of 38 grade 3B PTRCTs completed to full thickness and repaired. Specifically, their mean ASES and Constant scores improved 34.1 and 23.7 points, respectively. These results are similar to our ASES and Constant score improvements—38.9 and 24.7 points for the group as a whole and 36 and 25.1 points for the grade 3B cohort. In addition, our ASES scores are nearly identical to the preoperative (46.1) and postoperative (82.1) ASES scores found by Kamath and colleagues.⁶ Although the mean ASES and VAS score improvements reported by Deutsch⁵ (51 and 5.7 points, respectively) were slightly better than ours, these results are still comparable and support completion and repair.

Although results of the study by Cordasco and colleagues⁴ support differing surgical treatments of grade 2 tears based on location, the present findings support the established 50% algorithm for all 3 high-grade PTRCTs. The completion-and-repair method not only produced significant improvements for each PTRCT subtype, but, importantly, there was no significant difference among those outcomes. Unlike previous results for grade 2 tears, the present results confirmed the established algorithm for grade 3 tears.

Our multiple linear regression analyses suggested that etiology, longer duration of symptoms, and steroid injections each had a strong impact on outcomes. The literature on these preoperative factors is often conflicting, and our results continue the trend. For instance, in a study of acute rotator cuff tears, Petersen and Murphy¹⁹ studied acute rotator cuff tears and also found tear size had no significant effect on functional outcomes. However, contrary to our findings, they did not find symptom duration to be a significant predictor of results. Also contrary to our findings, Oh and colleagues²⁰ found age and tear size to be significant influences on outcomes for full-thickness tears. The strong correlation of preoperative steroid injection and better outcomes is novel and warrants further investigation.

In this study, we investigated the effectiveness of the completion-and-repair method in treating Ellman grade 3 PTRCTs. Although our findings validate this surgical technique, we acknowledge alternative approaches to high-grade PTRCTs. For instance, the transtendon method, which does not convert PTRCTs to full thickness, has also shown good clinical outcomes.^21-23 In fact, the preoperative and postoperative VAS measures used in our study are nearly identical to those used in an Ellman grade 3A transtendon repair study.¹ However, we agree with Porat and colleagues¹⁷ that the remaining, intact cuff material of PTRCTs is degenerative and may result in poor fixation, increased pain, or retear. In addition, nonoperative treatment typically is attempted before surgery, though little evidence is reported for success specifically in high-grade PTRCTs. One study found that 91% of PTRCT patients were still satisfied 4 years after nonoperative treatment, but it was noted that many of the tears were low-grade.²⁴ To continue an evidence-based discussion on the more effective treatment, we invite advocates of alternative approaches to conduct a similar study on all 3 Ellman grade 3 subtypes.

Study Limitations

Concomitant procedures were not uniform among all patients and therefore may have affected some outcome measurements. Subacromial decompression was nearly universal, as it was performed for surgical visualization in 98% of patients. The additional procedures were also deemed necessary based on the preoperative assessment and arthroscopic findings. Although these procedures may have influenced outcome measurements, similar studies regularly include them as well.^5-7,17 Our minimum 12-month follow-up could be considered a restriction, as other studies have cited a 2-year follow-up threshold.^5-7 However, Strauss and colleagues¹³ endorsed a 12-month standard in their systematic review. Last, about 10% (7/67) of our initial patients were lost to follow-up; this percentage, however, is comparable to what has been reported in other PTRCT studies.^{4-6,14,15,21,22}

Conclusion

Our study findings validate use of the current algorithm for Ellman grade 3 PTRCTs of the supraspinatus and advocate their completion and repair, regardless of tear location.

Acknowledgment: The authors thank Lisa Rein, MS, and Sergey Tarima, PhD, of the Division of Biostatistics, Medical College of Wisconsin, for their help in data analysis and manuscript preparation.


Am J Orthop. 2016;45(5):E254-E260. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2016. All rights reserved.

The Ellman¹ classification of partial-thickness rotator cuff tears (PTRCTs) is based on tear location or subtype (A, articular; B, bursal; C, intratendinous) and tear depth (grade 1, <3 mm; grade 2, 3-6 mm; grade 3, >6 mm). Ruotolo and colleagues² reported that the medial-lateral insertion width of the supraspinatus averaged 12.1 mm, and most authors have indicated that tear depth of 6 mm or more represents 50% tendon thickness. Therefore, Ellman grade 3 tears are considered high-grade (>50% thickness).

Advancements in shoulder arthroscopy, imaging modalities, and clinical research have helped refine our understanding of PTRCTs. Classic teaching based on the retrospective study by Weber³ calls for simple débridement of low-grade (<50%) tears and repair of tears thicker than 50%. According to this standard, Ellman grade 1 and 2 tears should be débrided and grade 3 tears repaired. However, Cordasco and colleagues⁴ provided evidence supporting an algorithm reformation based on tear location. In their study, results of simple débridement were significantly worse for Ellman grade 2B PTRCTs than for 2A tears, suggesting low-grade bursal tears should also be repaired. Although their study supported a change in operative management for grade 2 tears, to our knowledge no one has investigated the need for differing surgical treatments for grade 3 subtypes based on tear location.

Several studies have demonstrated the efficacy of arthroscopic completion and repair for high-grade PTRCTs of the supraspinatus.^5-7 Although all these studies addressed articular- and bursal-sided tears, there has been relative silence with respect to the intratendinous subtype. One explanation is that these tears, given their interstitial nature, pose diagnostic challenges. Histologic research has also shown that they can exist in combination with other tears.⁸ Despite such challenges, these tears are well documented. They were identified in the seminal study by Ellman¹ and were the most common PTRCTs encountered in a well-known cadaveric study (N = 249).^9,10 More recently, in 2011, a radiologic study using magnetic resonance arthrography found that 33.8% of PTRCTs were intratendinous (N = 68).¹¹ That study also documented the case of a nonoperatively treated intratendinous tear that progressed to a full-thickness tear within about 6 months.¹¹ Given these facts, it was important for the current PTRCT debate to include an intratendinous group when investigating treatment algorithms for grade 3 tears. Although results of the present study may continue reformation of the 50% algorithm, we hypothesized that arthroscopic completion and repair of all grade 3 PTRCTs will be equally effective, regardless of tear location.

Materials and Methods

After obtaining Institutional Review Board approval for this study, we retrospectively reviewed the operative reports of a fellowship-trained shoulder surgeon for the period 2008–2010. Patients who underwent arthroscopic completion and repair of a supraspinatus tendon PTRCT were identified. Preoperative identification of PTRCT was made on the basis of physical examination and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings (Figures 1–3).

Patients with low-grade PTRCTs of the supraspinatus, identified at time of arthroscopy, were excluded, as were patients with tears that extended into other rotator cuff tendons and patients with previous rotator cuff repair, glenohumeral instability, or adhesive capsulitis.

During the initial appointment, each patient completed a standard questionnaire that included standardized subjective scales evaluating pain and function. A fellowship-trained surgeon then took the patient’s history and performed a physical examination. Postoperative clinical outcome was determined at a minimum of 12 months. Clinical outcomes were assessed with 3 validated outcome measures: visual analog scale (VAS) score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, and Constant score.

Surgical Procedure and Rehabilitation

All procedures were performed with the patient under general anesthesia with or without an interscalene block. The patient was positioned in the upright beach-chair position. Diagnostic arthroscopy was used to assess the rotator cuff and associated pathologic conditions. If impingement was noted, subacromial decompression was performed. An acromioplasty was limited to removal of osteophytic bone. Distal clavicle excision and biceps tenotomy or tenodesis were performed if preoperative evaluation warranted these procedures.

The rotator cuff was assessed from the articular and bursal sides. For articular PTRCTs, a tagging suture was used to identify the lesion from the bursal side. Bursal-sided tears were probed to assess thinning of the tendon and determine tear grade. If preoperative MRI findings suggested an intratendinous tear, a probe was used to confirm thinning of the tendon. An arthroscopic shaver was then carefully used to débride the capsule on either side of the tendon at the location of the suspected tear. The shaver inevitably penetrated the capsule and entered the tear, where any degenerative tissue was further débrided (Figure 4).

Statistical Analysis

Power analysis demonstrated that a sample size of 20 in each group was adequate for detecting a medium to large effect size with 80% power. Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to compare the preoperative and postoperative scores for each outcome measure, and analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the amount of improvement for each of the 3 PTRCT subtypes. Paired t test was used to compare preoperative and postoperative ROM values, and unpaired t tests were used to determine the impact of corticosteroid injections and preoperative PT. For statistical analysis, patients were divided into 2 groups (yes, no) regarding injections and 2 groups (yes, no) regarding PT. Last, multiple linear regression analyses were performed for each outcome measure to determine the impact of potential confounders. Covariates included symptom duration, etiology, age, injection, PT, tear location, percentage of tendon torn (medial-lateral), and tear length (anterior-posterior). P < .05 was considered significant.

Results

Patient Sample and Demographics

Sixty-seven patients underwent arthroscopic repair of a PTRCT—22 grade 3A, 23 grade 3B, and 22 grade 3C. In each of the 3 groups, 20 patients returned for end-of-healing evaluation. Thus, the study population consisted of 60 patients (60 shoulders). The 7 patients who did not return for end-of-healing evaluation or who could not be contacted were excluded from the study.

Table 1 summarizes the key patient demographics. Of the 60 patients, 35 were men and 25 were women.

Range of Motion

The sample as a whole exhibited statistically significant improvement in active ROM (Table 2).

Operative Findings

Operative findings included mean tear thickness of 74% for the sample as a whole and mean anterior-to-posterior tear length of 10.7 mm overall. There was very little variance among the articular, bursal, and intratendinous means with respect to percentage of tear thickness (78.3%, 75.0%, and 68.8%, respectively) and anterior-to-posterior tear thickness (11.5 mm, 11.4 mm, and 9.1 mm, respectively). Each of the 6 tears (3 bursal, 2 articular, 1 intratendinous) that were longer than 15 mm required 2 anchors. Fifty-nine repairs (98%) involved subacromial decompression, 38 (63%) involved acromioclavicular resection, 18 (30%) involved débridement of the superior labrum anterior-to-posterior (SLAP), and 12 (20%) involved biceps tenodesis/tenotomy.

Outcome Measures

In the study population as a whole, and in all 3 tear subtypes, postoperative improvement in VAS, ASES, and Constant scores was statistically significant (Table 3).

Multiple linear regression analyses showed that etiology, symptom duration, and steroid injection were the primary predictors of each outcome. After the other variables were adjusted for, injection (vs noninjection) seemed to be associated with more improvement in ASES (P = .0061), VAS (P = .020), and Constant (P = .067) scores. Insidious (vs traumatic) etiology was significantly associated with more improvement in ASES scores (P = .033) and VAS scores (P = .014) but not Constant scores (P = .50). Longer time from symptom onset to surgery was associated with less improvement, though the coefficient was not statistically significant in any of the models at P = .05. The other possible covariates had no significant impact on outcomes.

Complications

There were no intraoperative or postoperative complications, and there were no incidents of recurrent rotator cuff tear or postoperative stiffness.

Discussion

We investigated the effectiveness of arthroscopic completion and repair of Ellman grade 3 PTRCTs by comparing the functional outcomes for each subtype. Although several studies have analyzed results of PTRCT repair, they all either omitted intratendinous tears or were not grade-specific. In a systematic review, Strauss and colleagues¹³ discussed 4 PTRCT outcome studies^4,6,14,15 in which only articular- and bursal-sided tears were addressed. Of these studies, only 1 (Kamath and colleagues⁶) focused on grade 3 lesions, and the number of bursal tears was insufficient for comparison with the articular tear group. Cordasco and colleagues⁴ limited their study to grade 1 and 2 tears but did not include intratendinous lesions.

In other research, Itoi and Tabata¹⁶ distinguished among the 3 subtypes but did not measure grade. As we did in our study, Deutsch⁵ focused on grade 3 lesions and used the completion-and-repair method, but he did not include intratendinous tears. Porat and colleagues¹⁷ reviewed grade 3 completion-and-repair results but did not compare them by subtype. Last, Uchiyama and colleagues¹⁸ reported strong outcomes for intratendinous tears but did not measure grade and used various surgical methods.

These studies have made important contributions to the ongoing PTRCT discussion, but debate about appropriate operative management persists. To limit the influence of external variables and provide the most exhaustive evidence regarding current PTRCT treatment algorithms, we designed the present study to consider outcomes with all 3 Ellman subtypes, only grade 3 lesions of the supraspinatus, only 1 surgical method, and consistent techniques of only 1 fellowship-trained shoulder surgeon.

Results of this chart review confirmed the findings of other grade 3 PTRCT repair studies. For instance, Koh and colleagues¹⁵ reported excellent results of 38 grade 3B PTRCTs completed to full thickness and repaired. Specifically, their mean ASES and Constant scores improved 34.1 and 23.7 points, respectively. These results are similar to our ASES and Constant score improvements—38.9 and 24.7 points for the group as a whole and 36 and 25.1 points for the grade 3B cohort. In addition, our ASES scores are nearly identical to the preoperative (46.1) and postoperative (82.1) ASES scores found by Kamath and colleagues.⁶ Although the mean ASES and VAS score improvements reported by Deutsch⁵ (51 and 5.7 points, respectively) were slightly better than ours, these results are still comparable and support completion and repair.

Although results of the study by Cordasco and colleagues⁴ support differing surgical treatments of grade 2 tears based on location, the present findings support the established 50% algorithm for all 3 high-grade PTRCTs. The completion-and-repair method not only produced significant improvements for each PTRCT subtype, but, importantly, there was no significant difference among those outcomes. Unlike previous results for grade 2 tears, the present results confirmed the established algorithm for grade 3 tears.

Our multiple linear regression analyses suggested that etiology, longer duration of symptoms, and steroid injections each had a strong impact on outcomes. The literature on these preoperative factors is often conflicting, and our results continue the trend. For instance, in a study of acute rotator cuff tears, Petersen and Murphy¹⁹ studied acute rotator cuff tears and also found tear size had no significant effect on functional outcomes. However, contrary to our findings, they did not find symptom duration to be a significant predictor of results. Also contrary to our findings, Oh and colleagues²⁰ found age and tear size to be significant influences on outcomes for full-thickness tears. The strong correlation of preoperative steroid injection and better outcomes is novel and warrants further investigation.

In this study, we investigated the effectiveness of the completion-and-repair method in treating Ellman grade 3 PTRCTs. Although our findings validate this surgical technique, we acknowledge alternative approaches to high-grade PTRCTs. For instance, the transtendon method, which does not convert PTRCTs to full thickness, has also shown good clinical outcomes.^21-23 In fact, the preoperative and postoperative VAS measures used in our study are nearly identical to those used in an Ellman grade 3A transtendon repair study.¹ However, we agree with Porat and colleagues¹⁷ that the remaining, intact cuff material of PTRCTs is degenerative and may result in poor fixation, increased pain, or retear. In addition, nonoperative treatment typically is attempted before surgery, though little evidence is reported for success specifically in high-grade PTRCTs. One study found that 91% of PTRCT patients were still satisfied 4 years after nonoperative treatment, but it was noted that many of the tears were low-grade.²⁴ To continue an evidence-based discussion on the more effective treatment, we invite advocates of alternative approaches to conduct a similar study on all 3 Ellman grade 3 subtypes.

Study Limitations

Concomitant procedures were not uniform among all patients and therefore may have affected some outcome measurements. Subacromial decompression was nearly universal, as it was performed for surgical visualization in 98% of patients. The additional procedures were also deemed necessary based on the preoperative assessment and arthroscopic findings. Although these procedures may have influenced outcome measurements, similar studies regularly include them as well.^5-7,17 Our minimum 12-month follow-up could be considered a restriction, as other studies have cited a 2-year follow-up threshold.^5-7 However, Strauss and colleagues¹³ endorsed a 12-month standard in their systematic review. Last, about 10% (7/67) of our initial patients were lost to follow-up; this percentage, however, is comparable to what has been reported in other PTRCT studies.^{4-6,14,15,21,22}

Conclusion

Our study findings validate use of the current algorithm for Ellman grade 3 PTRCTs of the supraspinatus and advocate their completion and repair, regardless of tear location.

Acknowledgment: The authors thank Lisa Rein, MS, and Sergey Tarima, PhD, of the Division of Biostatistics, Medical College of Wisconsin, for their help in data analysis and manuscript preparation.


Am J Orthop. 2016;45(5):E254-E260. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2016. All rights reserved.

Unilateral inferior shoulder dislocation (luxatio erecta) is uncommon, accounting for only 0.5% of all shoulder dislocations.¹ Bilateral luxatio erecta is extremely rare, having been described fewer than 20 times in the literature. The most common etiology is hyperabduction causing the humerus to lever on the acromion; less common is axial loading onto a fully abducted arm and an extended elbow.² Hyperabduction can occur when a person grabs an object in an attempt to stop a fall, as occurred in the present case. The patient provided written informed consent for print and electronic publication of this case report.

Case Report

A 58-year-old man with a trauma injury presented to our emergency department. For his open right elbow fracture, emergency medical services had given him fentanyl en route, and when he arrived he was less responsive. As the patient reported, he had been on a scaffold 16 feet high when it began to give way. He jumped for another scaffold, 3 to 4 feet away, but came up short and, in an attempt to stop himself from falling, grabbed onto it with arms extended and above his head. His hands and arms were immediately pulled up in full extension. When both shoulders became dislocated, he could not hold on and fell to the ground, landing on a buttock. He did not lose consciousness.

Physical examination revealed both arms abducted at the shoulder, and elbows extended (Figure 1).

Discussion

Although inferior shoulder dislocations are rare, they carry a higher rate of complications, most of which our patient experienced. Our patient had bilateral humeral head fractures, which occur in 80% of cases.⁶ Postreduction CT showed the degree of his fractures (Figure 3).

Our patient also had reduced sensation in the axillary nerve distribution, which occurs in 60% of inferior dislocations.⁶ Axillary nerve injuries produce numbness in the lateral arm or posterior shoulder and weakness with shoulder flexion, abduction, and external rotation.⁷ In our patient’s case, sensation returned after reduction, which is typical (most patients have a positive prognosis).⁸ As the shoulder dislocates inferiorly, the humeral head tears the glenohumeral capsule inferiorly, which can damage the axillary artery. This artery becomes the brachial and eventually the radial and ulnar arteries, which can have decreased or absent pulses with injury.

Inferior dislocations are also associated with abundant soft-tissue injuries, including torn rotator cuff, shoulder capsule avulsion, and disruption of adjacent muscles (supraspinatus, infraspinatus, teres minor, subscapularis, pectoralis major).⁹Luxatio erecta is relatively easy to diagnose given the unmistakable arm positioning. The key for the physician is first to assess for the many possible complications, then to administer the proper sedation and analgesia for reduction, and finally to reassess for complications.

Am J Orthop. 2016;45(6):E328-E330. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2016. All rights reserved.

Unilateral inferior shoulder dislocation (luxatio erecta) is uncommon, accounting for only 0.5% of all shoulder dislocations.¹ Bilateral luxatio erecta is extremely rare, having been described fewer than 20 times in the literature. The most common etiology is hyperabduction causing the humerus to lever on the acromion; less common is axial loading onto a fully abducted arm and an extended elbow.² Hyperabduction can occur when a person grabs an object in an attempt to stop a fall, as occurred in the present case. The patient provided written informed consent for print and electronic publication of this case report.

Case Report

A 58-year-old man with a trauma injury presented to our emergency department. For his open right elbow fracture, emergency medical services had given him fentanyl en route, and when he arrived he was less responsive. As the patient reported, he had been on a scaffold 16 feet high when it began to give way. He jumped for another scaffold, 3 to 4 feet away, but came up short and, in an attempt to stop himself from falling, grabbed onto it with arms extended and above his head. His hands and arms were immediately pulled up in full extension. When both shoulders became dislocated, he could not hold on and fell to the ground, landing on a buttock. He did not lose consciousness.

Physical examination revealed both arms abducted at the shoulder, and elbows extended (Figure 1).

Discussion

Although inferior shoulder dislocations are rare, they carry a higher rate of complications, most of which our patient experienced. Our patient had bilateral humeral head fractures, which occur in 80% of cases.⁶ Postreduction CT showed the degree of his fractures (Figure 3).

Our patient also had reduced sensation in the axillary nerve distribution, which occurs in 60% of inferior dislocations.⁶ Axillary nerve injuries produce numbness in the lateral arm or posterior shoulder and weakness with shoulder flexion, abduction, and external rotation.⁷ In our patient’s case, sensation returned after reduction, which is typical (most patients have a positive prognosis).⁸ As the shoulder dislocates inferiorly, the humeral head tears the glenohumeral capsule inferiorly, which can damage the axillary artery. This artery becomes the brachial and eventually the radial and ulnar arteries, which can have decreased or absent pulses with injury.

Inferior dislocations are also associated with abundant soft-tissue injuries, including torn rotator cuff, shoulder capsule avulsion, and disruption of adjacent muscles (supraspinatus, infraspinatus, teres minor, subscapularis, pectoralis major).⁹Luxatio erecta is relatively easy to diagnose given the unmistakable arm positioning. The key for the physician is first to assess for the many possible complications, then to administer the proper sedation and analgesia for reduction, and finally to reassess for complications.

Am J Orthop. 2016;45(6):E328-E330. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2016. All rights reserved.

Unilateral inferior shoulder dislocation (luxatio erecta) is uncommon, accounting for only 0.5% of all shoulder dislocations.¹ Bilateral luxatio erecta is extremely rare, having been described fewer than 20 times in the literature. The most common etiology is hyperabduction causing the humerus to lever on the acromion; less common is axial loading onto a fully abducted arm and an extended elbow.² Hyperabduction can occur when a person grabs an object in an attempt to stop a fall, as occurred in the present case. The patient provided written informed consent for print and electronic publication of this case report.

Case Report

A 58-year-old man with a trauma injury presented to our emergency department. For his open right elbow fracture, emergency medical services had given him fentanyl en route, and when he arrived he was less responsive. As the patient reported, he had been on a scaffold 16 feet high when it began to give way. He jumped for another scaffold, 3 to 4 feet away, but came up short and, in an attempt to stop himself from falling, grabbed onto it with arms extended and above his head. His hands and arms were immediately pulled up in full extension. When both shoulders became dislocated, he could not hold on and fell to the ground, landing on a buttock. He did not lose consciousness.

Physical examination revealed both arms abducted at the shoulder, and elbows extended (Figure 1).

Discussion

Although inferior shoulder dislocations are rare, they carry a higher rate of complications, most of which our patient experienced. Our patient had bilateral humeral head fractures, which occur in 80% of cases.⁶ Postreduction CT showed the degree of his fractures (Figure 3).

Our patient also had reduced sensation in the axillary nerve distribution, which occurs in 60% of inferior dislocations.⁶ Axillary nerve injuries produce numbness in the lateral arm or posterior shoulder and weakness with shoulder flexion, abduction, and external rotation.⁷ In our patient’s case, sensation returned after reduction, which is typical (most patients have a positive prognosis).⁸ As the shoulder dislocates inferiorly, the humeral head tears the glenohumeral capsule inferiorly, which can damage the axillary artery. This artery becomes the brachial and eventually the radial and ulnar arteries, which can have decreased or absent pulses with injury.

Inferior dislocations are also associated with abundant soft-tissue injuries, including torn rotator cuff, shoulder capsule avulsion, and disruption of adjacent muscles (supraspinatus, infraspinatus, teres minor, subscapularis, pectoralis major).⁹Luxatio erecta is relatively easy to diagnose given the unmistakable arm positioning. The key for the physician is first to assess for the many possible complications, then to administer the proper sedation and analgesia for reduction, and finally to reassess for complications.

Am J Orthop. 2016;45(6):E328-E330. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2016. All rights reserved.

Although elbow arthroscopy was first described in the 1930s, it has become increasingly popular in the last 30 years.¹ While initially considered as a tool for diagnosis and loose body removal, indications have expanded to include treatment of osteochondritis dissecans (OCD), treatment of lateral epicondylitis, fixation of fractures, and others.^2-5 Miyake and colleagues⁶ found a significant improvement in range of motion, both flexion and extension, and outcome scores when elbow arthroscopy was used to remove impinging osteophytes. Babaqi and colleagues⁷ found significant improvement in pain, satisfaction, and outcome scores in 31 patients who underwent elbow arthroscopy for lateral epicondylitis refractory to nonsurgical management. The technical difficulty of the procedure, lower frequency of pathology amenable to arthroscopic intervention, and potential neurovascular complications make the elbow less frequently evaluated with the arthroscope vs other joints, such as the knee and shoulder.^2,8,9

Geographic distribution of subjects undergoing elbow arthroscopy, the indications used, surgical techniques being performed, and their associated clinical outcomes have received little to no recognition in the peer-reviewed literature.10 Differences in the elbow arthroscopy literature include characteristics related to the patient (age, gender, hand dominance, duration of symptoms), study (level of evidence, number of subjects, number of participating centers, design), indication (lateral epicondylitis, loose bodies, olecranon osteophytes, OCD), surgical technique, and outcome. Evidence-based medicine and clinical practice guidelines direct surgeons in clinical decision-making. Payers investigate the cost of surgical interventions and the value that surgery may provide, while following trends in different surgical techniques. Regulatory agencies and associations emphasize subjective patient-reported outcomes as the primary outcome measured in high-quality trials. Thus, in discussion of complex surgical interventions such as elbow arthroscopy, it is important to characterize the studies, subjects, and surgeries across the world to understand the geographic similarities and differences to optimize care in this clinical situation.

The goal of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of elbow arthroscopy literature to identify and compare the characteristics of the studies published, the subjects analyzed, and surgical techniques performed across continents and countries to answer these questions: “Across the world, what demographic of patients are undergoing elbow arthroscopy, what are the most common indications for elbow arthroscopy, and how good is the evidence?” The authors hypothesized that patients who undergo elbow arthroscopy will be largely age <40 years, the most common indication for elbow arthroscopy will be a release/débridement, and the evidence for elbow arthroscopy will be poor. Also, no significant differences will exist in elbow arthroscopy publications, subjects, outcomes, and techniques based on continent/country of publication.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines using a PRISMA checklist.¹¹ Systematic review registration was performed using the International Prospective Register of Ongoing Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; registration number, CRD42014010580; registration date, July 15, 2014).¹² Two study authors independently conducted the search on June 23, 2014 using the following databases: Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, SportDiscus, and CINAHL. The electronic search citation algorithm used was: (elbow) AND arthroscopy) NOT shoulder) NOT knee) NOT ankle) NOT wrist) NOT hip) NOT dog) NOT cadaver). English language Level I-IV evidence (2012 update by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine¹³) clinical studies were eligible for inclusion into this study. Abstracts were ineligible for inclusion. All references in selected studies were cross-referenced for inclusion if they were missed during the initial search. Duplicate subject publications within separate unique studies were not reported twice. The study with longer duration follow-up, higher level of evidence, greater number of subjects, or more detailed subject, surgical technique, or outcome reporting was retained for inclusion. Level V evidence reviews, expert opinion articles, letters to the editor, basic science, biomechanical studies, open elbow surgery, imaging, surgical technique, and classification studies were excluded.

All included patients underwent elbow arthroscopy for either intra- or extra-articular elbow pathology (ulnotrochlear osteoarthritis, lateral epicondylitis, rheumatoid arthritis, post-traumatic contracture, osteonecrosis of the capitellum or radial head, osteoid osteoma, and others). There was no minimum follow-up duration or rehabilitation requirement. The study and subject demographic parameters that we analyzed included year of publication, years of subject enrollment, presence of study financial conflict of interest, number of subjects and elbows, elbow dominance, gender, age, body mass index, diagnoses treated, type of anesthesia (block or general), and surgical positioning. Postoperative splint application and pain management, and whether a continuous passive motion machine was used and whether a drain was placed were recorded. Clinical outcome scores were DASH (Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand), Morrey score, MEPS (Mayo Elbow Performance Score), Andrews-Carson score, Timmerman-Andrews score, LES (Liverpool Elbow Score), Tegner score, HSS (Hospital for Special Surgery Score), VAS (Visual Analog Scale), EFA (Elbow Functional Assessment), Short Form-12 (SF-12), Short Form-36 (SF-36), Kerlan-Jobe Orthopaedic Clinic (KJOC) Shoulder and Elbow Questionnaire, and MAESS (Modified Andrews Elbow Scoring System). Radiographs, computed tomography (CT), computed tomography arthrography (CTA), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and magnetic resonance arthrography (MRA) data were extracted when available. Range of motion (flexion, extension, supination, and pronation) and grip strength data, both preoperative and postoperative, were extracted when available. Study methodological quality was evaluated using the Modified Coleman Methodology Score (MCMS).¹⁴

Statistical Analysis

Study descriptive statistics were calculated. Continuous variable data were reported as weighted means ± weighted standard deviations. Categorical variable data were reported as frequencies with percentages. For all statistical analysis either measured and calculated from study data extraction or directly reported from the individual studies, P < .05 was considered statistically significant. Study, subject, and surgical outcomes data were compared using 1-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests. Where applicable, study, subject, and surgical outcomes data were also compared using 2-sample and 2-proportion Z-test calculators with α .05 because of the difference in sample sizes between compared groups. To examine trends over time, Pearson’s correlation coefficients were calculated. For the purposes of analysis, the indications of “osteoarthritis,” “arthrofibrosis,” “loose body removal,” “ulnotrochlear osteoarthritis causing stiffness,” “post-traumatic contracture/stiffness,” and “post-operative elbow contracture” were combined into the indication “release and débridement.” For the 3 most common indications for arthroscopy (OCD, lateral epicondylitis, and release and débridement) data were combined into 5-year increments to overcome the smaller sample size within each of these categories, and Pearson’s correlation coefficients were calculated to determine if number of reported cases covaried with year period. Within these 3 diagnoses, ANOVA analyses were performed to determine whether the number of cases differed between continents and countries.

Results

A total of 353 studies were located, and, after implementation of the exclusion criteria, 112 studies were included in the final analysis (Figure 1; 3093 subjects; 3168 elbows; 64% male; mean age, 34.9 ± 14.68 years). There was a mean of 33.4 ± 26.02 months of follow-up, and 75% of surgeries involved the dominant elbow (Table 1). Most studies were level IV evidence (94.6%), had a low MCMS (mean 28.1 ± 8.06; poor rating), and were single-center investigations (94.6%). Most studies did not report financial conflicts of interest (56.3%) (Tables 1 and 2). From 1985 through 2014, the number of publications significantly increased with time (P = .004) among all continents. The MCMS was unchanged over time (P = .247) (Figure 2A), as was the level of evidence (P = .094) (Figure 2B). Conflicts of interest significantly increased with time (P = .025) (Figure 3).

Among continents, North America published the largest number of studies (54), and had the largest number of patients (1395) and elbow surgeries (1425) (Table 1). The United States published the largest number of studies (43%). There were no significant differences between age (P = .331), length of follow-up (P = .403), MCMS (P = .123), and level of evidence (P = .288) between continents. Of the 32 studies that reported the use of preoperative MRI, studies from Asia reported significantly more MRI scans than those from other continents (P = .040); there were no other significant differences between continents in reference to preoperative imaging studies or other demographic information.

The most common surgical indications were OCD (Figure 4), lateral epicondylitis (Figure 5), and release and débridement (Figure 6, Table 3; all studies listed indications). The number of reported cases for these 3 indications significantly increased over time (OCD P = .005, lateral epicondylitis P = .044, release and débridement P = .042) but did not significantly differ between regions (P > .05 in all cases).

Thirty-two (28.6%) studies reported the use of outcome measures (16 different outcome scores were used by the included studies). Asia reported outcome measures in 9 of 23 studies (39%), Europe in 12 of 35 studies (34%) and North America in 11 of 54 (20%) of studies. The MEPS was the most frequently used outcome score in 9.8% of studies, followed by VAS for pain in 5.3% of cases. North American studies reported a significantly higher increase in extension after elbow arthroscopy than Asia (P = .0432) (Figure 7), with no differences in flexion (P = .699), pronation (P = .376), or supination (P = .408). No significant differences were observed between continents in the type of anesthesia chosen (general anesthesia [P = .94] or regional anesthesia [P = .85]). Asia and Europe performed elbow arthroscopy most frequently in the lateral decubitus position, while North American studies most often used the supine position (Table 4).

Twenty (17.9%) studies reported the use of a postoperative splint, 12 (10.7%) studies reported use of a drain, 2 (1.79%) studies reported use of a hinged elbow brace, 9 (8.03%) studies reported use of a continuous passive motion machine postoperatively, and 3 (2.68%) studies reported use of an indwelling axillary catheter for postoperative pain management. Of 130 reported surgical complications (4.1%), the most frequent complication was transient sensory ulnar nerve palsy (1.5%), followed by persistent wound drainage (.76%), and transient sensory radial nerve palsy (.38%). Other reported complications included infection (.22%), transient sensory palsy of the median nerve (.19%), heterotopic ossification (.13%), complete transection of the ulnar nerve (.10%), loose body formation (.06%), hematoma formation (.06%), transient sensory palsy of the posterior interosseous (.06%), or anterior interosseous nerve (.03%), and complete transection of the radial (.03%), or median nerve (.03%).

Discussion

Elbow arthroscopy is an evolving surgical procedure that is used to treat intra- and extra-articular pathologies of the elbow. Outcomes of elbow arthroscopy for certain conditions have generally been reported as good, with improvements seen in pain, functional scores, and range of motion.^6,15-17 The authors’ hypotheses were mostly confirmed in that the average age of patients undergoing elbow arthroscopy was <40 years, release/débridement was one of the most common indications (along with lateral epicondylitis and OCD), and the general evidence for elbow arthroscopy was poor. Also, there were almost no differences between continents/countries related to patient indications, preoperative imaging, anesthesia choice, indications, postoperative protocols, and outcomes (although the number of studies that reported outcomes was low and could have skewed the results), with the exception of a higher number of preoperative MRI scans in Asia. Some of the notable findings of this study included: 1) the number of studies published on elbow arthroscopy is significantly increasing with time, despite a lack of improvement in the level of evidence; 2) the majority of studies on elbow arthroscopy do not report a surgical outcome score; and 3) the number of reported cases for the 3 most common indications significantly increased over time (OCD, P = .005; lateral epicondylitis, P = .044; release and débridement, P = .042) but did not differ between regions (P > .05 in all cases).

The indications for elbow arthroscopy have grown dramatically in the past 2 decades to include both intra- and extra-articular pathologies.¹⁸ Despite this increase in the number of indications for elbow arthroscopy, the study did not find a significant difference between countries/continents in the indications each used for elbow arthroscopy patients. There was a trend towards an increase in OCD cases in all continents, especially Asia (Figure 4), with time. Interestingly, while not statistically significant, there was variation among countries for surgical indications. In North America, removal of loose bodies accounts for 18% of patients, while in Europe this accounted for only 9% and in Asia for 1%. Post-traumatic stiffness was the indication for elbow arthroscopy in Europe in 19% of patients vs 7% in North America and 10% in Asia. In Asia, OCD accounts for 40% of arthroscopies, 7% in Europe, and 14% in North America (Figure 4) (Table 3).

This study demonstrated that the mean increase in elbow extension gained after surgery in North America was significantly greater when compared with studies from Asia, but the gain in flexion, pronation, and supination was similar across continents. The underlying cause of this difference in improvement in elbow extension between nations is unclear, although differences in diagnosis could account for some variation. This study did not examine differences in rehabilitation protocols, and certainly, it is plausible that protocol variations by country could account for some discrepancy. Furthermore, differences in functional needs may vary by continent and could have driven this result.

This study found no routine reporting of outcome scores by elbow arthroscopy studies from any continent, and that when outcome scores are reported, there is substantial inconsistency with regard to the actual scoring system used. No continent reported outcome scores in more than 40% of the studies published from that area, and the variation of outcome scores used, even from a single region, was large. This makes comparing clinical outcomes between studies difficult, even when performing identical procedures for identical indications, because there is no standardized method of reporting outcomes. To allow comparison of studies and generalizability of the results to different populations, a more standardized approach to outcome reporting needs to be instituted in the elbow arthroscopy literature. To date, there is no standardized score that has been validated for reporting clinical outcomes after elbow arthroscopy.19 Hence, it is not surprising that there were 16 different outcome scores reported throughout the 112 studies analyzed in this review, with the most frequent score, the MEPS, reported in a total of 10 studies. As medicine moves towards pay scales that are based on patient outcomes, it will become more important to define a clear outcome score that can be used to assess these patients, and reliably report scores. This will allow comparison of patients across nations to determine the best surgical treatment for different clinical problems. A validation study comparing these outcome scores to determine which score best summarizes the patient’s level of pain and function after surgery would be beneficial, because this could identify 1 score that could be standardized to allow comparison among reported outcomes.

Limitations

This study had several limitations. Despite having 2 authors search independently for studies, some studies could have been missed during the search process, introducing possible selection bias. Including only published studies could have introduced publication bias. Numerous studies did not report all the variables the authors examined. This could have skewed some results, and had additional variables been reported, could have altered the data to show significant differences in some measured variables. Because this study did not compare outcome measures for varying pathologies, conclusions cannot be drawn on the best treatment options for different indications. Case reports could have lowered the MCMS score and the average in studies reporting outcomes. Furthermore, the poor quality of the underlying data used in this study could limit the validity/generalizability of the results because this is a systematic review, and its level of evidence is only as high as the studies it includes. Because the primary aim was to report on demographics, this study did not examine concomitant pathology at the time of surgery or rehabilitation protocols.

Conclusion

The quantity, but not the quality, of arthroscopic elbow publications has significantly increased over time. Most patients undergo elbow arthroscopy for lateral epicondylitis, OCD, and release and débridement. Pathology and indications do not appear to differ geographically with more men undergoing elbow arthroscopy than women.

Although elbow arthroscopy was first described in the 1930s, it has become increasingly popular in the last 30 years.¹ While initially considered as a tool for diagnosis and loose body removal, indications have expanded to include treatment of osteochondritis dissecans (OCD), treatment of lateral epicondylitis, fixation of fractures, and others.^2-5 Miyake and colleagues⁶ found a significant improvement in range of motion, both flexion and extension, and outcome scores when elbow arthroscopy was used to remove impinging osteophytes. Babaqi and colleagues⁷ found significant improvement in pain, satisfaction, and outcome scores in 31 patients who underwent elbow arthroscopy for lateral epicondylitis refractory to nonsurgical management. The technical difficulty of the procedure, lower frequency of pathology amenable to arthroscopic intervention, and potential neurovascular complications make the elbow less frequently evaluated with the arthroscope vs other joints, such as the knee and shoulder.^2,8,9

Geographic distribution of subjects undergoing elbow arthroscopy, the indications used, surgical techniques being performed, and their associated clinical outcomes have received little to no recognition in the peer-reviewed literature.10 Differences in the elbow arthroscopy literature include characteristics related to the patient (age, gender, hand dominance, duration of symptoms), study (level of evidence, number of subjects, number of participating centers, design), indication (lateral epicondylitis, loose bodies, olecranon osteophytes, OCD), surgical technique, and outcome. Evidence-based medicine and clinical practice guidelines direct surgeons in clinical decision-making. Payers investigate the cost of surgical interventions and the value that surgery may provide, while following trends in different surgical techniques. Regulatory agencies and associations emphasize subjective patient-reported outcomes as the primary outcome measured in high-quality trials. Thus, in discussion of complex surgical interventions such as elbow arthroscopy, it is important to characterize the studies, subjects, and surgeries across the world to understand the geographic similarities and differences to optimize care in this clinical situation.

The goal of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of elbow arthroscopy literature to identify and compare the characteristics of the studies published, the subjects analyzed, and surgical techniques performed across continents and countries to answer these questions: “Across the world, what demographic of patients are undergoing elbow arthroscopy, what are the most common indications for elbow arthroscopy, and how good is the evidence?” The authors hypothesized that patients who undergo elbow arthroscopy will be largely age <40 years, the most common indication for elbow arthroscopy will be a release/débridement, and the evidence for elbow arthroscopy will be poor. Also, no significant differences will exist in elbow arthroscopy publications, subjects, outcomes, and techniques based on continent/country of publication.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines using a PRISMA checklist.¹¹ Systematic review registration was performed using the International Prospective Register of Ongoing Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; registration number, CRD42014010580; registration date, July 15, 2014).¹² Two study authors independently conducted the search on June 23, 2014 using the following databases: Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, SportDiscus, and CINAHL. The electronic search citation algorithm used was: (elbow) AND arthroscopy) NOT shoulder) NOT knee) NOT ankle) NOT wrist) NOT hip) NOT dog) NOT cadaver). English language Level I-IV evidence (2012 update by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine¹³) clinical studies were eligible for inclusion into this study. Abstracts were ineligible for inclusion. All references in selected studies were cross-referenced for inclusion if they were missed during the initial search. Duplicate subject publications within separate unique studies were not reported twice. The study with longer duration follow-up, higher level of evidence, greater number of subjects, or more detailed subject, surgical technique, or outcome reporting was retained for inclusion. Level V evidence reviews, expert opinion articles, letters to the editor, basic science, biomechanical studies, open elbow surgery, imaging, surgical technique, and classification studies were excluded.

All included patients underwent elbow arthroscopy for either intra- or extra-articular elbow pathology (ulnotrochlear osteoarthritis, lateral epicondylitis, rheumatoid arthritis, post-traumatic contracture, osteonecrosis of the capitellum or radial head, osteoid osteoma, and others). There was no minimum follow-up duration or rehabilitation requirement. The study and subject demographic parameters that we analyzed included year of publication, years of subject enrollment, presence of study financial conflict of interest, number of subjects and elbows, elbow dominance, gender, age, body mass index, diagnoses treated, type of anesthesia (block or general), and surgical positioning. Postoperative splint application and pain management, and whether a continuous passive motion machine was used and whether a drain was placed were recorded. Clinical outcome scores were DASH (Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand), Morrey score, MEPS (Mayo Elbow Performance Score), Andrews-Carson score, Timmerman-Andrews score, LES (Liverpool Elbow Score), Tegner score, HSS (Hospital for Special Surgery Score), VAS (Visual Analog Scale), EFA (Elbow Functional Assessment), Short Form-12 (SF-12), Short Form-36 (SF-36), Kerlan-Jobe Orthopaedic Clinic (KJOC) Shoulder and Elbow Questionnaire, and MAESS (Modified Andrews Elbow Scoring System). Radiographs, computed tomography (CT), computed tomography arthrography (CTA), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and magnetic resonance arthrography (MRA) data were extracted when available. Range of motion (flexion, extension, supination, and pronation) and grip strength data, both preoperative and postoperative, were extracted when available. Study methodological quality was evaluated using the Modified Coleman Methodology Score (MCMS).¹⁴

Statistical Analysis

Study descriptive statistics were calculated. Continuous variable data were reported as weighted means ± weighted standard deviations. Categorical variable data were reported as frequencies with percentages. For all statistical analysis either measured and calculated from study data extraction or directly reported from the individual studies, P < .05 was considered statistically significant. Study, subject, and surgical outcomes data were compared using 1-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests. Where applicable, study, subject, and surgical outcomes data were also compared using 2-sample and 2-proportion Z-test calculators with α .05 because of the difference in sample sizes between compared groups. To examine trends over time, Pearson’s correlation coefficients were calculated. For the purposes of analysis, the indications of “osteoarthritis,” “arthrofibrosis,” “loose body removal,” “ulnotrochlear osteoarthritis causing stiffness,” “post-traumatic contracture/stiffness,” and “post-operative elbow contracture” were combined into the indication “release and débridement.” For the 3 most common indications for arthroscopy (OCD, lateral epicondylitis, and release and débridement) data were combined into 5-year increments to overcome the smaller sample size within each of these categories, and Pearson’s correlation coefficients were calculated to determine if number of reported cases covaried with year period. Within these 3 diagnoses, ANOVA analyses were performed to determine whether the number of cases differed between continents and countries.

Results

A total of 353 studies were located, and, after implementation of the exclusion criteria, 112 studies were included in the final analysis (Figure 1; 3093 subjects; 3168 elbows; 64% male; mean age, 34.9 ± 14.68 years). There was a mean of 33.4 ± 26.02 months of follow-up, and 75% of surgeries involved the dominant elbow (Table 1). Most studies were level IV evidence (94.6%), had a low MCMS (mean 28.1 ± 8.06; poor rating), and were single-center investigations (94.6%). Most studies did not report financial conflicts of interest (56.3%) (Tables 1 and 2). From 1985 through 2014, the number of publications significantly increased with time (P = .004) among all continents. The MCMS was unchanged over time (P = .247) (Figure 2A), as was the level of evidence (P = .094) (Figure 2B). Conflicts of interest significantly increased with time (P = .025) (Figure 3).

Among continents, North America published the largest number of studies (54), and had the largest number of patients (1395) and elbow surgeries (1425) (Table 1). The United States published the largest number of studies (43%). There were no significant differences between age (P = .331), length of follow-up (P = .403), MCMS (P = .123), and level of evidence (P = .288) between continents. Of the 32 studies that reported the use of preoperative MRI, studies from Asia reported significantly more MRI scans than those from other continents (P = .040); there were no other significant differences between continents in reference to preoperative imaging studies or other demographic information.

The most common surgical indications were OCD (Figure 4), lateral epicondylitis (Figure 5), and release and débridement (Figure 6, Table 3; all studies listed indications). The number of reported cases for these 3 indications significantly increased over time (OCD P = .005, lateral epicondylitis P = .044, release and débridement P = .042) but did not significantly differ between regions (P > .05 in all cases).

Thirty-two (28.6%) studies reported the use of outcome measures (16 different outcome scores were used by the included studies). Asia reported outcome measures in 9 of 23 studies (39%), Europe in 12 of 35 studies (34%) and North America in 11 of 54 (20%) of studies. The MEPS was the most frequently used outcome score in 9.8% of studies, followed by VAS for pain in 5.3% of cases. North American studies reported a significantly higher increase in extension after elbow arthroscopy than Asia (P = .0432) (Figure 7), with no differences in flexion (P = .699), pronation (P = .376), or supination (P = .408). No significant differences were observed between continents in the type of anesthesia chosen (general anesthesia [P = .94] or regional anesthesia [P = .85]). Asia and Europe performed elbow arthroscopy most frequently in the lateral decubitus position, while North American studies most often used the supine position (Table 4).

Twenty (17.9%) studies reported the use of a postoperative splint, 12 (10.7%) studies reported use of a drain, 2 (1.79%) studies reported use of a hinged elbow brace, 9 (8.03%) studies reported use of a continuous passive motion machine postoperatively, and 3 (2.68%) studies reported use of an indwelling axillary catheter for postoperative pain management. Of 130 reported surgical complications (4.1%), the most frequent complication was transient sensory ulnar nerve palsy (1.5%), followed by persistent wound drainage (.76%), and transient sensory radial nerve palsy (.38%). Other reported complications included infection (.22%), transient sensory palsy of the median nerve (.19%), heterotopic ossification (.13%), complete transection of the ulnar nerve (.10%), loose body formation (.06%), hematoma formation (.06%), transient sensory palsy of the posterior interosseous (.06%), or anterior interosseous nerve (.03%), and complete transection of the radial (.03%), or median nerve (.03%).

Discussion

Elbow arthroscopy is an evolving surgical procedure that is used to treat intra- and extra-articular pathologies of the elbow. Outcomes of elbow arthroscopy for certain conditions have generally been reported as good, with improvements seen in pain, functional scores, and range of motion.^6,15-17 The authors’ hypotheses were mostly confirmed in that the average age of patients undergoing elbow arthroscopy was <40 years, release/débridement was one of the most common indications (along with lateral epicondylitis and OCD), and the general evidence for elbow arthroscopy was poor. Also, there were almost no differences between continents/countries related to patient indications, preoperative imaging, anesthesia choice, indications, postoperative protocols, and outcomes (although the number of studies that reported outcomes was low and could have skewed the results), with the exception of a higher number of preoperative MRI scans in Asia. Some of the notable findings of this study included: 1) the number of studies published on elbow arthroscopy is significantly increasing with time, despite a lack of improvement in the level of evidence; 2) the majority of studies on elbow arthroscopy do not report a surgical outcome score; and 3) the number of reported cases for the 3 most common indications significantly increased over time (OCD, P = .005; lateral epicondylitis, P = .044; release and débridement, P = .042) but did not differ between regions (P > .05 in all cases).

The indications for elbow arthroscopy have grown dramatically in the past 2 decades to include both intra- and extra-articular pathologies.¹⁸ Despite this increase in the number of indications for elbow arthroscopy, the study did not find a significant difference between countries/continents in the indications each used for elbow arthroscopy patients. There was a trend towards an increase in OCD cases in all continents, especially Asia (Figure 4), with time. Interestingly, while not statistically significant, there was variation among countries for surgical indications. In North America, removal of loose bodies accounts for 18% of patients, while in Europe this accounted for only 9% and in Asia for 1%. Post-traumatic stiffness was the indication for elbow arthroscopy in Europe in 19% of patients vs 7% in North America and 10% in Asia. In Asia, OCD accounts for 40% of arthroscopies, 7% in Europe, and 14% in North America (Figure 4) (Table 3).

This study demonstrated that the mean increase in elbow extension gained after surgery in North America was significantly greater when compared with studies from Asia, but the gain in flexion, pronation, and supination was similar across continents. The underlying cause of this difference in improvement in elbow extension between nations is unclear, although differences in diagnosis could account for some variation. This study did not examine differences in rehabilitation protocols, and certainly, it is plausible that protocol variations by country could account for some discrepancy. Furthermore, differences in functional needs may vary by continent and could have driven this result.

This study found no routine reporting of outcome scores by elbow arthroscopy studies from any continent, and that when outcome scores are reported, there is substantial inconsistency with regard to the actual scoring system used. No continent reported outcome scores in more than 40% of the studies published from that area, and the variation of outcome scores used, even from a single region, was large. This makes comparing clinical outcomes between studies difficult, even when performing identical procedures for identical indications, because there is no standardized method of reporting outcomes. To allow comparison of studies and generalizability of the results to different populations, a more standardized approach to outcome reporting needs to be instituted in the elbow arthroscopy literature. To date, there is no standardized score that has been validated for reporting clinical outcomes after elbow arthroscopy.19 Hence, it is not surprising that there were 16 different outcome scores reported throughout the 112 studies analyzed in this review, with the most frequent score, the MEPS, reported in a total of 10 studies. As medicine moves towards pay scales that are based on patient outcomes, it will become more important to define a clear outcome score that can be used to assess these patients, and reliably report scores. This will allow comparison of patients across nations to determine the best surgical treatment for different clinical problems. A validation study comparing these outcome scores to determine which score best summarizes the patient’s level of pain and function after surgery would be beneficial, because this could identify 1 score that could be standardized to allow comparison among reported outcomes.

Limitations

This study had several limitations. Despite having 2 authors search independently for studies, some studies could have been missed during the search process, introducing possible selection bias. Including only published studies could have introduced publication bias. Numerous studies did not report all the variables the authors examined. This could have skewed some results, and had additional variables been reported, could have altered the data to show significant differences in some measured variables. Because this study did not compare outcome measures for varying pathologies, conclusions cannot be drawn on the best treatment options for different indications. Case reports could have lowered the MCMS score and the average in studies reporting outcomes. Furthermore, the poor quality of the underlying data used in this study could limit the validity/generalizability of the results because this is a systematic review, and its level of evidence is only as high as the studies it includes. Because the primary aim was to report on demographics, this study did not examine concomitant pathology at the time of surgery or rehabilitation protocols.

Conclusion

The quantity, but not the quality, of arthroscopic elbow publications has significantly increased over time. Most patients undergo elbow arthroscopy for lateral epicondylitis, OCD, and release and débridement. Pathology and indications do not appear to differ geographically with more men undergoing elbow arthroscopy than women.

Although elbow arthroscopy was first described in the 1930s, it has become increasingly popular in the last 30 years.¹ While initially considered as a tool for diagnosis and loose body removal, indications have expanded to include treatment of osteochondritis dissecans (OCD), treatment of lateral epicondylitis, fixation of fractures, and others.^2-5 Miyake and colleagues⁶ found a significant improvement in range of motion, both flexion and extension, and outcome scores when elbow arthroscopy was used to remove impinging osteophytes. Babaqi and colleagues⁷ found significant improvement in pain, satisfaction, and outcome scores in 31 patients who underwent elbow arthroscopy for lateral epicondylitis refractory to nonsurgical management. The technical difficulty of the procedure, lower frequency of pathology amenable to arthroscopic intervention, and potential neurovascular complications make the elbow less frequently evaluated with the arthroscope vs other joints, such as the knee and shoulder.^2,8,9

Geographic distribution of subjects undergoing elbow arthroscopy, the indications used, surgical techniques being performed, and their associated clinical outcomes have received little to no recognition in the peer-reviewed literature.10 Differences in the elbow arthroscopy literature include characteristics related to the patient (age, gender, hand dominance, duration of symptoms), study (level of evidence, number of subjects, number of participating centers, design), indication (lateral epicondylitis, loose bodies, olecranon osteophytes, OCD), surgical technique, and outcome. Evidence-based medicine and clinical practice guidelines direct surgeons in clinical decision-making. Payers investigate the cost of surgical interventions and the value that surgery may provide, while following trends in different surgical techniques. Regulatory agencies and associations emphasize subjective patient-reported outcomes as the primary outcome measured in high-quality trials. Thus, in discussion of complex surgical interventions such as elbow arthroscopy, it is important to characterize the studies, subjects, and surgeries across the world to understand the geographic similarities and differences to optimize care in this clinical situation.

The goal of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of elbow arthroscopy literature to identify and compare the characteristics of the studies published, the subjects analyzed, and surgical techniques performed across continents and countries to answer these questions: “Across the world, what demographic of patients are undergoing elbow arthroscopy, what are the most common indications for elbow arthroscopy, and how good is the evidence?” The authors hypothesized that patients who undergo elbow arthroscopy will be largely age <40 years, the most common indication for elbow arthroscopy will be a release/débridement, and the evidence for elbow arthroscopy will be poor. Also, no significant differences will exist in elbow arthroscopy publications, subjects, outcomes, and techniques based on continent/country of publication.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines using a PRISMA checklist.¹¹ Systematic review registration was performed using the International Prospective Register of Ongoing Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; registration number, CRD42014010580; registration date, July 15, 2014).¹² Two study authors independently conducted the search on June 23, 2014 using the following databases: Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, SportDiscus, and CINAHL. The electronic search citation algorithm used was: (elbow) AND arthroscopy) NOT shoulder) NOT knee) NOT ankle) NOT wrist) NOT hip) NOT dog) NOT cadaver). English language Level I-IV evidence (2012 update by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine¹³) clinical studies were eligible for inclusion into this study. Abstracts were ineligible for inclusion. All references in selected studies were cross-referenced for inclusion if they were missed during the initial search. Duplicate subject publications within separate unique studies were not reported twice. The study with longer duration follow-up, higher level of evidence, greater number of subjects, or more detailed subject, surgical technique, or outcome reporting was retained for inclusion. Level V evidence reviews, expert opinion articles, letters to the editor, basic science, biomechanical studies, open elbow surgery, imaging, surgical technique, and classification studies were excluded.

All included patients underwent elbow arthroscopy for either intra- or extra-articular elbow pathology (ulnotrochlear osteoarthritis, lateral epicondylitis, rheumatoid arthritis, post-traumatic contracture, osteonecrosis of the capitellum or radial head, osteoid osteoma, and others). There was no minimum follow-up duration or rehabilitation requirement. The study and subject demographic parameters that we analyzed included year of publication, years of subject enrollment, presence of study financial conflict of interest, number of subjects and elbows, elbow dominance, gender, age, body mass index, diagnoses treated, type of anesthesia (block or general), and surgical positioning. Postoperative splint application and pain management, and whether a continuous passive motion machine was used and whether a drain was placed were recorded. Clinical outcome scores were DASH (Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand), Morrey score, MEPS (Mayo Elbow Performance Score), Andrews-Carson score, Timmerman-Andrews score, LES (Liverpool Elbow Score), Tegner score, HSS (Hospital for Special Surgery Score), VAS (Visual Analog Scale), EFA (Elbow Functional Assessment), Short Form-12 (SF-12), Short Form-36 (SF-36), Kerlan-Jobe Orthopaedic Clinic (KJOC) Shoulder and Elbow Questionnaire, and MAESS (Modified Andrews Elbow Scoring System). Radiographs, computed tomography (CT), computed tomography arthrography (CTA), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and magnetic resonance arthrography (MRA) data were extracted when available. Range of motion (flexion, extension, supination, and pronation) and grip strength data, both preoperative and postoperative, were extracted when available. Study methodological quality was evaluated using the Modified Coleman Methodology Score (MCMS).¹⁴

Statistical Analysis

Study descriptive statistics were calculated. Continuous variable data were reported as weighted means ± weighted standard deviations. Categorical variable data were reported as frequencies with percentages. For all statistical analysis either measured and calculated from study data extraction or directly reported from the individual studies, P < .05 was considered statistically significant. Study, subject, and surgical outcomes data were compared using 1-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests. Where applicable, study, subject, and surgical outcomes data were also compared using 2-sample and 2-proportion Z-test calculators with α .05 because of the difference in sample sizes between compared groups. To examine trends over time, Pearson’s correlation coefficients were calculated. For the purposes of analysis, the indications of “osteoarthritis,” “arthrofibrosis,” “loose body removal,” “ulnotrochlear osteoarthritis causing stiffness,” “post-traumatic contracture/stiffness,” and “post-operative elbow contracture” were combined into the indication “release and débridement.” For the 3 most common indications for arthroscopy (OCD, lateral epicondylitis, and release and débridement) data were combined into 5-year increments to overcome the smaller sample size within each of these categories, and Pearson’s correlation coefficients were calculated to determine if number of reported cases covaried with year period. Within these 3 diagnoses, ANOVA analyses were performed to determine whether the number of cases differed between continents and countries.

Results

A total of 353 studies were located, and, after implementation of the exclusion criteria, 112 studies were included in the final analysis (Figure 1; 3093 subjects; 3168 elbows; 64% male; mean age, 34.9 ± 14.68 years). There was a mean of 33.4 ± 26.02 months of follow-up, and 75% of surgeries involved the dominant elbow (Table 1). Most studies were level IV evidence (94.6%), had a low MCMS (mean 28.1 ± 8.06; poor rating), and were single-center investigations (94.6%). Most studies did not report financial conflicts of interest (56.3%) (Tables 1 and 2). From 1985 through 2014, the number of publications significantly increased with time (P = .004) among all continents. The MCMS was unchanged over time (P = .247) (Figure 2A), as was the level of evidence (P = .094) (Figure 2B). Conflicts of interest significantly increased with time (P = .025) (Figure 3).

Among continents, North America published the largest number of studies (54), and had the largest number of patients (1395) and elbow surgeries (1425) (Table 1). The United States published the largest number of studies (43%). There were no significant differences between age (P = .331), length of follow-up (P = .403), MCMS (P = .123), and level of evidence (P = .288) between continents. Of the 32 studies that reported the use of preoperative MRI, studies from Asia reported significantly more MRI scans than those from other continents (P = .040); there were no other significant differences between continents in reference to preoperative imaging studies or other demographic information.

The most common surgical indications were OCD (Figure 4), lateral epicondylitis (Figure 5), and release and débridement (Figure 6, Table 3; all studies listed indications). The number of reported cases for these 3 indications significantly increased over time (OCD P = .005, lateral epicondylitis P = .044, release and débridement P = .042) but did not significantly differ between regions (P > .05 in all cases).

Thirty-two (28.6%) studies reported the use of outcome measures (16 different outcome scores were used by the included studies). Asia reported outcome measures in 9 of 23 studies (39%), Europe in 12 of 35 studies (34%) and North America in 11 of 54 (20%) of studies. The MEPS was the most frequently used outcome score in 9.8% of studies, followed by VAS for pain in 5.3% of cases. North American studies reported a significantly higher increase in extension after elbow arthroscopy than Asia (P = .0432) (Figure 7), with no differences in flexion (P = .699), pronation (P = .376), or supination (P = .408). No significant differences were observed between continents in the type of anesthesia chosen (general anesthesia [P = .94] or regional anesthesia [P = .85]). Asia and Europe performed elbow arthroscopy most frequently in the lateral decubitus position, while North American studies most often used the supine position (Table 4).

Twenty (17.9%) studies reported the use of a postoperative splint, 12 (10.7%) studies reported use of a drain, 2 (1.79%) studies reported use of a hinged elbow brace, 9 (8.03%) studies reported use of a continuous passive motion machine postoperatively, and 3 (2.68%) studies reported use of an indwelling axillary catheter for postoperative pain management. Of 130 reported surgical complications (4.1%), the most frequent complication was transient sensory ulnar nerve palsy (1.5%), followed by persistent wound drainage (.76%), and transient sensory radial nerve palsy (.38%). Other reported complications included infection (.22%), transient sensory palsy of the median nerve (.19%), heterotopic ossification (.13%), complete transection of the ulnar nerve (.10%), loose body formation (.06%), hematoma formation (.06%), transient sensory palsy of the posterior interosseous (.06%), or anterior interosseous nerve (.03%), and complete transection of the radial (.03%), or median nerve (.03%).

Discussion

Elbow arthroscopy is an evolving surgical procedure that is used to treat intra- and extra-articular pathologies of the elbow. Outcomes of elbow arthroscopy for certain conditions have generally been reported as good, with improvements seen in pain, functional scores, and range of motion.^6,15-17 The authors’ hypotheses were mostly confirmed in that the average age of patients undergoing elbow arthroscopy was <40 years, release/débridement was one of the most common indications (along with lateral epicondylitis and OCD), and the general evidence for elbow arthroscopy was poor. Also, there were almost no differences between continents/countries related to patient indications, preoperative imaging, anesthesia choice, indications, postoperative protocols, and outcomes (although the number of studies that reported outcomes was low and could have skewed the results), with the exception of a higher number of preoperative MRI scans in Asia. Some of the notable findings of this study included: 1) the number of studies published on elbow arthroscopy is significantly increasing with time, despite a lack of improvement in the level of evidence; 2) the majority of studies on elbow arthroscopy do not report a surgical outcome score; and 3) the number of reported cases for the 3 most common indications significantly increased over time (OCD, P = .005; lateral epicondylitis, P = .044; release and débridement, P = .042) but did not differ between regions (P > .05 in all cases).

The indications for elbow arthroscopy have grown dramatically in the past 2 decades to include both intra- and extra-articular pathologies.¹⁸ Despite this increase in the number of indications for elbow arthroscopy, the study did not find a significant difference between countries/continents in the indications each used for elbow arthroscopy patients. There was a trend towards an increase in OCD cases in all continents, especially Asia (Figure 4), with time. Interestingly, while not statistically significant, there was variation among countries for surgical indications. In North America, removal of loose bodies accounts for 18% of patients, while in Europe this accounted for only 9% and in Asia for 1%. Post-traumatic stiffness was the indication for elbow arthroscopy in Europe in 19% of patients vs 7% in North America and 10% in Asia. In Asia, OCD accounts for 40% of arthroscopies, 7% in Europe, and 14% in North America (Figure 4) (Table 3).

This study demonstrated that the mean increase in elbow extension gained after surgery in North America was significantly greater when compared with studies from Asia, but the gain in flexion, pronation, and supination was similar across continents. The underlying cause of this difference in improvement in elbow extension between nations is unclear, although differences in diagnosis could account for some variation. This study did not examine differences in rehabilitation protocols, and certainly, it is plausible that protocol variations by country could account for some discrepancy. Furthermore, differences in functional needs may vary by continent and could have driven this result.

This study found no routine reporting of outcome scores by elbow arthroscopy studies from any continent, and that when outcome scores are reported, there is substantial inconsistency with regard to the actual scoring system used. No continent reported outcome scores in more than 40% of the studies published from that area, and the variation of outcome scores used, even from a single region, was large. This makes comparing clinical outcomes between studies difficult, even when performing identical procedures for identical indications, because there is no standardized method of reporting outcomes. To allow comparison of studies and generalizability of the results to different populations, a more standardized approach to outcome reporting needs to be instituted in the elbow arthroscopy literature. To date, there is no standardized score that has been validated for reporting clinical outcomes after elbow arthroscopy.19 Hence, it is not surprising that there were 16 different outcome scores reported throughout the 112 studies analyzed in this review, with the most frequent score, the MEPS, reported in a total of 10 studies. As medicine moves towards pay scales that are based on patient outcomes, it will become more important to define a clear outcome score that can be used to assess these patients, and reliably report scores. This will allow comparison of patients across nations to determine the best surgical treatment for different clinical problems. A validation study comparing these outcome scores to determine which score best summarizes the patient’s level of pain and function after surgery would be beneficial, because this could identify 1 score that could be standardized to allow comparison among reported outcomes.

Limitations

This study had several limitations. Despite having 2 authors search independently for studies, some studies could have been missed during the search process, introducing possible selection bias. Including only published studies could have introduced publication bias. Numerous studies did not report all the variables the authors examined. This could have skewed some results, and had additional variables been reported, could have altered the data to show significant differences in some measured variables. Because this study did not compare outcome measures for varying pathologies, conclusions cannot be drawn on the best treatment options for different indications. Case reports could have lowered the MCMS score and the average in studies reporting outcomes. Furthermore, the poor quality of the underlying data used in this study could limit the validity/generalizability of the results because this is a systematic review, and its level of evidence is only as high as the studies it includes. Because the primary aim was to report on demographics, this study did not examine concomitant pathology at the time of surgery or rehabilitation protocols.

Conclusion

The quantity, but not the quality, of arthroscopic elbow publications has significantly increased over time. Most patients undergo elbow arthroscopy for lateral epicondylitis, OCD, and release and débridement. Pathology and indications do not appear to differ geographically with more men undergoing elbow arthroscopy than women.

Although total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) has proved to be a reliable solution in older patients, treatment in younger patients with glenohumeral arthritis remains controversial, and there are still few reliable long-term surgical options.^1-8 These options include abrasion arthroplasty and arthroscopic management,^9,10 biologic glenoid resurfacing,^11,12 and humeral hemiarthroplasty with¹³ or without^14,15 glenoid treatment and anatomical TSA.

In the younger cohort, 20-year TSA survivorship rates up to 84% have been reported, and unsatisfactory subjective outcomes have been unacceptably high.¹⁶ In addition, there is a paucity of literature addressing the impact of TSA on return to sport. Recommendations on returning to an athletic life style are based largely on surveys of expert opinion^17,18 and heterogeneous studies of either older patients (eg, age >50-55 years) who are active^19-21 or younger patients with no defined level of activity.^{5,7,8,16,22-24}

To our knowledge, no one has evaluated the short-term morbidity and clinical outcomes within a young, high-demand patient population, such as the US military. Therefore, we conducted a study to evaluate the clinical success and complications of TSA performed for glenohumeral arthritis in a young, active population. We hypothesized that patients who had undergone TSA would have a low rate of return to duty, an increased rate of component failure, and a higher reoperation rate because of increased upper extremity demands.

Materials and Methods

After obtaining protocol approval from the William Beaumont Army Medical Center Institutional Review Board, we searched the Military Health System (MHS) Management Analysis and Reporting Tool (M2) database to retrospectively review the cases of all tri-service US military service members who had undergone primary anatomical TSA (Current Procedural Terminology code 23472) between January 1, 2007 and June 31, 2014. This was a multisurgeon, multicenter study. Patient exclusion criteria were nonmilitary or retired status at time of surgery; primary surgery consisting of limited glenohumeral resurfacing procedure, hemiarthroplasty, or reverse TSA; surgery for acute proximal humerus fracture; rotator cuff deficiency diagnosed before or during surgery; and insufficient follow-up (eg, <12 months, unless medically separated beforehand).

The M2 database is an established tool that has been used for clinical outcomes research on treatment of a variety of orthopedic conditions.25,26 The Medical Data Repository, which is operated by MHS, is populated by its military healthcare providers. The MHS, which offers worldwide coverage for all beneficiaries either at Department of Defense facilities or purchased using civilian providers, is among the largest known closed healthcare systems.

All active-duty US military service members are uniformly required to adhere to stringent and regularly evaluated physical fitness standards, which typically exceed those of average civilians. Routine physical training is required in the form of aerobic fitness, weight training, tactical field exercises, and core military tasks, such as the ability to march at least 2 miles while carrying heavy fighting loads. In addition to satisfying required height and weight standards, all service members are subject to semiannual service-specific physical fitness evaluations inclusive of timed push-ups, sit-ups, and an aerobic event. Service members may also be required to maintain a level of physical training above these baseline standards, contingent on their branch of service, rank, and military occupational specialty. If a service member is unable to maintain these standards, medical separation may be initiated.

Demographic and occupational data were extracted from the database. These data included age, sex, military rank, and branch of service. Line-by-line analysis of the Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application (Version 22; 3M) electronic medical record was then performed to confirm the underlying diagnosis, surgical procedure, and surgery date. Further chart review yielded additional patient-based factors (eg, laterality, hand dominance, presence and type of prior shoulder surgeries) and surgical factors (eg, surgery indication, implant design). We evaluated clinical and functional outcomes as well as perioperative complications, including both major and minor systemic and local complications as previously described^27,28; preoperative and postoperative range of motion (ROM) and self-reported pain score (SRPS, scale 1-10) as measured by physical therapist and surgeon at follow-up; secondary surgical interventions; timing of return to duty; and postoperative deployment history. The primary outcome measures were revision reoperation after index procedure, and military discharge for persistent shoulder-related disability. Clinical failure was defined as component failure or reoperation. Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) is a formal separation from the military in which it is deemed that a service member is no longer able to fulfill his or her duty because of a medical condition.

Statistical Analysis

Continuous variables were compared using statistical means with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and/or SDs. Categorical data were reported as frequencies or percentages. Univariate analysis was performed to assess the correlation between possible risk factors and the primary outcome measures. P < .05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Demographics

We identified 24 service members (26 shoulders) who had undergone anatomical TSA during the study period (Table 1). Mean (SD) age was 45.8 (4.5) years (range, 35-54 years), and the cohort was predominately male (25/26 shoulders; 96.2%). Most cohort members were of senior enlisted rank (14, 58.3%), and the US Army was the predominant branch of military service (13, 54.2%). The right side was the operative extremity in 7 cases (26.9%), and the dominant shoulder was involved in 6 cases (23.1%). Two patients (8.3%) underwent staged bilateral TSA. Most patients (76.9%) underwent TSA on the nondominant extremity.

Surgical Variables

TSA was indicated for post-instability arthropathy in 13 cases (50.0%), posttraumatic osteoarthritis in 7 cases (26.9%), and unspecified glenohumeral arthritis, which includes primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis, in 5 cases (19.2%) (Table 2). One case was attributed to iatrogenically induced chondrolysis secondary to intra-articular lidocaine pump. Twelve patients (46.2%) had at least 1 previous surgery. Of the shoulders with instability, 10 (76.9%) had undergone a total of 14 surgical stabilization procedures—10 anterior labral repairs, 2 posterior labral repairs, and 2 capsular plications. The other shoulders had undergone a total of 18 procedures, which included 4 rotator cuff repairs and 3 cartilage restoration procedures.

Clinical Outcomes

Mean (SD) follow-up was 41.0 (21.3) months (range, 11.6-97.6 months). All but 1 shoulder (96.2%) had follow-up of 12 months or more (the only patient with shorter follow-up was because of MEB), and 76.9% of patients had follow-up of 24 months or more (4 of the 6 patients with follow-up under 24 months were medically separated) (Table 3). In all cases, mean ROM improved with respect to flexion, abduction, and external rotation. At final follow-up, mean (SD) ROM was 138° (36°) forward flexion (range, 60°-180°), 125° (39°) abduction (range, 45°-180°), 48° (19°) external rotation at 0° abduction (range, 20°-90°), and 80° (9.4°) external rotation at 90° abduction (range, 70°-90°). Preoperative flexion, abduction, and external rotation at 0° and 90° abduction were all improved at final follow-up. The most improvement in ROM occurred within 6 months after surgery.

Overall patient satisfaction with surgery was 92.3% (n = 24). Ultimately, 18 (72.0%) of 25 shoulders with follow-up of 1 year or more were able to return to active duty within 1 year after surgery, though only 10 (45.5%) of 22 with follow-up of 2 years or more remained active 2 years after surgery. Furthermore, 5 patients (20.8%) were deployed after surgery, and all were still on active duty at final follow-up. By final follow-up, 9 (37.5%) of 24 service members were unable to return to military function; 7 had been medically discharged from the military for persistent shoulder disability, and 2 were in the process of being medically discharged.

In all cases, SRPS improved from before surgery (5.2 out of 10) to final follow-up (1.4). At final follow-up, 22 patients (88.0%) reported mild pain (0-3), and no one had pain above 6.

Complications

Nine patients had a total of 12 postoperative complications (46.2%): 6 component failures (23.1%), 2 neurologic injuries (7.7%; 1 permanent axillary nerve injury, 1 transient brachial plexus neuritis), 2 cases of adhesive capsulitis (7.7%), and 2 episodes of venous thrombosis (7.7%; 1 superficial, 1 deep) (Table 4). There were no documented infections. Six reoperations (23.1%) were performed for the 6 component failures (2 traumatic dislocations of prosthesis resulting in acute glenoid component failure, 3 cases of atraumatic glenoid loosening, 1 case of humeral stem loosening after periprosthetic fracture). Atraumatic glenoid component loosening occurred a mean (SD) of 40.6 (14.2) months after surgery (range, 20.8-54.2 months).

Surgical Failures

Eight service members underwent MEB. Six patients experienced component failure. Factors contributing to both clinical failure and separation from active duty by means of MEB were evaluated with univariate analysis (Table 5). No statistically significant risk factors, including surgical revision and presence of perioperative complications, were identified.

Discussion

We confirmed that our cohort of young service members (mean age, 45.8 years), who had undergone TSA for glenohumeral arthritis, had a relatively higher rate of component failure (23.1%) and a higher reoperation rate (23.1%) with low rates of return to military duty at short-term to midterm follow-up. Our results parallel those of a limited series with a younger cohort (Table 6).^{7,16,19,21,23,24} The high demand and increased life expectancy of the younger patients with glenohumeral arthritis potentiates the risk of complications, component loosening, and ultimate failure.²⁹ To our knowledge, the present article is the first to report clinical and functional outcomes and perioperative risk profiles in a homogenously young, active military cohort after TSA.

The mean age of our study population (46 years) is one of the lowest in the literature. TSA in younger patients (age, <50-55 years) and older, active patients (>55 years) has received increased attention as a result of the expanding indications and growing popularity of TSA in these groups. Other studies have upheld the efficacy of TSA in achieving predictable pain relief and functional improvement in a diverse and predominantly elderly population.^15,30-34 Alternative treatments, including humeral head resurfacing^15,30,35 and soft-tissue interposition,^15,36-40 have also shown inferior short- and long-term results in terms of longevity and degree of clinical or functional improvement.^31-34,41 In addition, the ream-and-run technique has had promising early results by improving glenohumeral kinematics, pain relief, and shoulder function.^13,42,43 However, although implantation of a glenoid component is avoided in young, active people because of reduced longevity and higher rates of component failure, the trade-offs are inadequately treated glenoid disease, suboptimal pain relief, and progression of glenoid arthritis eventually requiring revision. Furthermore, midterm and long-term survivorship of TSA in general is unknown, and there remain few good options for treating end-stage arthritis in young, active patients.

Our cohort had high rates of complications (46.2%) and revisions (23.1%). Two in 5 patients had postoperative complications, most commonly component failure resulting in reoperation. In the literature, complication rates among young patients who underwent TSA are much lower (4.8%-10.9%).^16,23,24 Our cohort’s most common complication was component failure (23.1%), which was most often attributed to atraumatic, aseptic glenoid component loosening and required reoperation. Previously reported revision rates in a young population that underwent TSA (0%-11%)^16,23,24 were also significantly lower than those in the present analysis (23.1%), underscoring the impact of operative indications, postoperative activity levels, and occupational demands on ultimate failure rates. Interestingly, all revisions in our study were for component failure, whereas previous reports have described a higher rate for infection.²² However, the same studies also found glenoid lucency rates as high as 76% at 10-year follow-up.¹⁶ Furthermore, in a review of 136 TSAs with unsatisfactory outcomes, glenoid loosening was the most common reason for presenting to clinic after surgery.⁴⁴ Specifically, our population had a high rate of glenohumeral arthritis secondary to instability (50.0%) and posttraumatic osteoarthritis (26.9%). For many reasons, outcomes were worse in younger patients with a history of glenohumeral instability³³ than in older patients without a high incidence of instability.⁴⁵ This young cohort with higher demands may have had accelerated polyethylene wear patterns caused by repetitive overhead activity, which may have arisen because of a higher functional profile after surgery and greater patient expectations after arthroplasty. In addition, patients with a history of instability may have altered glenohumeral anatomy, especially with previous arthroscopic or open stabilization procedures. Anatomical changes include excessive posterior glenoid wear, internal rotation contracture, patulous capsular tissue, static or dynamic posterior humeral subluxation, and possible overconstraint after prior stabilization procedures. Almost half of our population had a previous surgery; our patients averaged 1.7 previous surgeries each.

Although estimates of component survivorship at a high-volume civilian tertiary-referral center were as high as 97% at 10 years and 84% at 20 years,^7,16 10-year survivorship in patients with a history of instability was only 61%.3 TSA survivorship in our young, active cohort is already foreseeably dramatically reduced, given the 23.1% revision rate at 28.5-month follow-up. This consideration must be addressed during preoperative counseling with the young patient with glenohumeral arthritis and a history of shoulder instability.

Despite the high rates of complications and revisions in our study, 92.3% of patients were satisfied with surgery, 88.0% experienced minimal persistence of pain (mean 3.8-point decrease on SRPS), and 100% maintained improved ROM at final follow-up. Satisfaction in the young population has varied significantly, from 52% to 95%, generally on the basis of physical activity.^16,22-24 The reasonable rate of postoperative satisfaction in the present analysis is comparable to what has been reported in patients of a similar age (Table 6).^7,16,22 However, despite high satisfaction and pain relief, patients were inconsistently able to return to the upper limits of physical activity required of active-duty military service. In addition, we cannot exclude secondary gain motivations for pursuing medical retirement, similar to that seen in patients receiving worker’s compensation.

Other authors have conversely found more favorable functional outcomes and survivorship rates.^23,24 In a retrospective review of 46 TSAs in patients 55 years or younger, Bartelt and colleagues²⁴ found sustained improvements in pain, ROM, and satisfaction at 7-year follow-up.24 Raiss and colleagues²³ conducted a prospective study of TSA outcomes in 21 patients with a mean age of 55 years and a mean follow-up of 7 years and reported no revisions and only 1 minor complication, a transient brachial plexus palsy.²³ The discrepancy between these studies may reflect different activity levels and underlying pathology between cohorts. The present population is unique in that it represents a particularly difficult confluence of factors for shoulder arthroplasty surgeons. The high activity, significant overhead and lifting occupational demands, and discordant patient expectations of this military cohort place a significant functional burden on the implants, the glenoid component in particular. Furthermore, this patient group has a higher incidence of more complex glenohumeral pathology resulting in instability, posttraumatic, or capsulorrhaphy arthropathy, and multiple prior arthroscopic and open stabilization procedures.

At final follow-up, only 33% of our patients were still on activity duty, 37.5% had completed or were completing medical separation from the military after surgery for persistent shoulder disability, and 37.5% were retired from the military. Five patients (20.8%) deployed after surgery. This young, active cohort of service members who had TSA for glenohumeral arthritis faced a unique set of tremendous physical demands. A retrospective case series investigated return to sport in 100 consecutive patients (mean age, 68.9 years) who were participating in recreational and competitive athletics and underwent unilateral TSA.²¹ The patients were engaged most commonly in swimming (20.4%), golf (16.3%), cycling (16.3%), and fitness training (16.3%). The authors found that, at a mean follow-up of 2.8 years, 49 patients (89%) were able to continue in sports, though 36.7% thought their sport activity was restricted after TSA. In another retrospective case series (61 TSAs), McCarty and colleagues¹⁹ found that 48 patients (71%) were improved in their sports participation, and 50% increased their frequency of participation after surgery.

There are no specific recommendations on returning to military service or high-level sport after surgery. Recommendations on returning to sport after TSA have been based largely on small case series involving specific sports^46,47 and surveys of expert opinion.^17,18 In a survey on postoperative physical activity in young patients after TSA conducted by Healy and colleagues,¹⁷ 35 American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons members recommended avoiding contact and impact sports while permitting return to nonimpact sports, such as swimming, which may still impart significant stress to the glenohumeral joint. In an international survey of 101 shoulder and elbow surgeons, Magnussen and colleagues¹⁸ also found that most recommended avoiding a return to impact sports that require intensive upper extremity demands and permitting full return to sports at preoperative levels. This likely is a result of the perception that most of these patients having TSA are older and have less rigorous involvement in sports at the outset and a lower propensity for adverse patient outcomes. However, these recommendations may place a younger, more high-demand patient at significantly greater risk. The active-duty cohort engages in daily physical training, including push-ups and frequent overhead lifting, which could account for the high failure rates and low incidence of postoperative deployment. Although TSA seems to demonstrate good initial results in terms of return to high-demand activities, the return-to-duty profile in our study highlights the potential pitfalls of TSA in active individuals attempting to return to high-demand preoperative function.

Our analysis was limited by the fact that we used a small patient cohort, contributing to underpowered analysis of the potential risk factors predictive of reoperation and medical discharge. Although our minimum follow-up was 12 months, with the exception of 1 patient who was medically separated at 11.6 months because of shoulder disability, we captured 5 patients (19.2%) who underwent medical separation but who would otherwise be excluded. Therefore, this limitation is not major in that, with a longer minimum follow-up, we would be excluding a significant number of patients with such persistent disability after TSA that they would not be able to return to duty at anywhere near their previous level. In this retrospective study, we were additionally limited to analysis of the data in the medical records and could not control for variables such as surgeon technique, implant choice, and experience. Complete radiographic images were not available, limiting analysis of radiographic outcomes. Given the lack of a standardized preoperative imaging protocol, we could not evaluate glenoid version on axial imaging. It is possible that some patients with early aseptic glenoid loosening had posterior subluxation or a Walch B2 glenoid, which has a higher failure rate.⁴⁸ The strengths of this study include its unique analysis of a homogeneous young, active, high-risk patient cohort within a closed healthcare system. In the military, these patients are subject to intense daily physical and occupational demands. In addition, the clinical and functional outcomes we studied are patient-centered and therefore relevant during preoperative counseling. Further investigations might focus on validated outcome measures and on midterm to long-term TSA outcomes in an active military population vis-à-vis other alternatives for clinical management.

Conclusion

By a mean follow-up of 3.5 years, only a third of the service members had returned to active duty, roughly a third had retired, and more than a third had been medically discharged because of persistent disability attributable to the shoulder. Despite initial improvements in ROM and pain, midterm outcomes were poor. The short-term complication rate (46.2%) and the rate of reoperation for component failure (23.1%) should be emphasized during preoperative counseling.

Although total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) has proved to be a reliable solution in older patients, treatment in younger patients with glenohumeral arthritis remains controversial, and there are still few reliable long-term surgical options.^1-8 These options include abrasion arthroplasty and arthroscopic management,^9,10 biologic glenoid resurfacing,^11,12 and humeral hemiarthroplasty with¹³ or without^14,15 glenoid treatment and anatomical TSA.

In the younger cohort, 20-year TSA survivorship rates up to 84% have been reported, and unsatisfactory subjective outcomes have been unacceptably high.¹⁶ In addition, there is a paucity of literature addressing the impact of TSA on return to sport. Recommendations on returning to an athletic life style are based largely on surveys of expert opinion^17,18 and heterogeneous studies of either older patients (eg, age >50-55 years) who are active^19-21 or younger patients with no defined level of activity.^{5,7,8,16,22-24}

To our knowledge, no one has evaluated the short-term morbidity and clinical outcomes within a young, high-demand patient population, such as the US military. Therefore, we conducted a study to evaluate the clinical success and complications of TSA performed for glenohumeral arthritis in a young, active population. We hypothesized that patients who had undergone TSA would have a low rate of return to duty, an increased rate of component failure, and a higher reoperation rate because of increased upper extremity demands.

Materials and Methods

After obtaining protocol approval from the William Beaumont Army Medical Center Institutional Review Board, we searched the Military Health System (MHS) Management Analysis and Reporting Tool (M2) database to retrospectively review the cases of all tri-service US military service members who had undergone primary anatomical TSA (Current Procedural Terminology code 23472) between January 1, 2007 and June 31, 2014. This was a multisurgeon, multicenter study. Patient exclusion criteria were nonmilitary or retired status at time of surgery; primary surgery consisting of limited glenohumeral resurfacing procedure, hemiarthroplasty, or reverse TSA; surgery for acute proximal humerus fracture; rotator cuff deficiency diagnosed before or during surgery; and insufficient follow-up (eg, <12 months, unless medically separated beforehand).

The M2 database is an established tool that has been used for clinical outcomes research on treatment of a variety of orthopedic conditions.25,26 The Medical Data Repository, which is operated by MHS, is populated by its military healthcare providers. The MHS, which offers worldwide coverage for all beneficiaries either at Department of Defense facilities or purchased using civilian providers, is among the largest known closed healthcare systems.

All active-duty US military service members are uniformly required to adhere to stringent and regularly evaluated physical fitness standards, which typically exceed those of average civilians. Routine physical training is required in the form of aerobic fitness, weight training, tactical field exercises, and core military tasks, such as the ability to march at least 2 miles while carrying heavy fighting loads. In addition to satisfying required height and weight standards, all service members are subject to semiannual service-specific physical fitness evaluations inclusive of timed push-ups, sit-ups, and an aerobic event. Service members may also be required to maintain a level of physical training above these baseline standards, contingent on their branch of service, rank, and military occupational specialty. If a service member is unable to maintain these standards, medical separation may be initiated.

Demographic and occupational data were extracted from the database. These data included age, sex, military rank, and branch of service. Line-by-line analysis of the Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application (Version 22; 3M) electronic medical record was then performed to confirm the underlying diagnosis, surgical procedure, and surgery date. Further chart review yielded additional patient-based factors (eg, laterality, hand dominance, presence and type of prior shoulder surgeries) and surgical factors (eg, surgery indication, implant design). We evaluated clinical and functional outcomes as well as perioperative complications, including both major and minor systemic and local complications as previously described^27,28; preoperative and postoperative range of motion (ROM) and self-reported pain score (SRPS, scale 1-10) as measured by physical therapist and surgeon at follow-up; secondary surgical interventions; timing of return to duty; and postoperative deployment history. The primary outcome measures were revision reoperation after index procedure, and military discharge for persistent shoulder-related disability. Clinical failure was defined as component failure or reoperation. Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) is a formal separation from the military in which it is deemed that a service member is no longer able to fulfill his or her duty because of a medical condition.

Statistical Analysis

Continuous variables were compared using statistical means with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and/or SDs. Categorical data were reported as frequencies or percentages. Univariate analysis was performed to assess the correlation between possible risk factors and the primary outcome measures. P < .05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Demographics

We identified 24 service members (26 shoulders) who had undergone anatomical TSA during the study period (Table 1). Mean (SD) age was 45.8 (4.5) years (range, 35-54 years), and the cohort was predominately male (25/26 shoulders; 96.2%). Most cohort members were of senior enlisted rank (14, 58.3%), and the US Army was the predominant branch of military service (13, 54.2%). The right side was the operative extremity in 7 cases (26.9%), and the dominant shoulder was involved in 6 cases (23.1%). Two patients (8.3%) underwent staged bilateral TSA. Most patients (76.9%) underwent TSA on the nondominant extremity.

Surgical Variables

TSA was indicated for post-instability arthropathy in 13 cases (50.0%), posttraumatic osteoarthritis in 7 cases (26.9%), and unspecified glenohumeral arthritis, which includes primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis, in 5 cases (19.2%) (Table 2). One case was attributed to iatrogenically induced chondrolysis secondary to intra-articular lidocaine pump. Twelve patients (46.2%) had at least 1 previous surgery. Of the shoulders with instability, 10 (76.9%) had undergone a total of 14 surgical stabilization procedures—10 anterior labral repairs, 2 posterior labral repairs, and 2 capsular plications. The other shoulders had undergone a total of 18 procedures, which included 4 rotator cuff repairs and 3 cartilage restoration procedures.

Clinical Outcomes

Mean (SD) follow-up was 41.0 (21.3) months (range, 11.6-97.6 months). All but 1 shoulder (96.2%) had follow-up of 12 months or more (the only patient with shorter follow-up was because of MEB), and 76.9% of patients had follow-up of 24 months or more (4 of the 6 patients with follow-up under 24 months were medically separated) (Table 3). In all cases, mean ROM improved with respect to flexion, abduction, and external rotation. At final follow-up, mean (SD) ROM was 138° (36°) forward flexion (range, 60°-180°), 125° (39°) abduction (range, 45°-180°), 48° (19°) external rotation at 0° abduction (range, 20°-90°), and 80° (9.4°) external rotation at 90° abduction (range, 70°-90°). Preoperative flexion, abduction, and external rotation at 0° and 90° abduction were all improved at final follow-up. The most improvement in ROM occurred within 6 months after surgery.

Overall patient satisfaction with surgery was 92.3% (n = 24). Ultimately, 18 (72.0%) of 25 shoulders with follow-up of 1 year or more were able to return to active duty within 1 year after surgery, though only 10 (45.5%) of 22 with follow-up of 2 years or more remained active 2 years after surgery. Furthermore, 5 patients (20.8%) were deployed after surgery, and all were still on active duty at final follow-up. By final follow-up, 9 (37.5%) of 24 service members were unable to return to military function; 7 had been medically discharged from the military for persistent shoulder disability, and 2 were in the process of being medically discharged.

In all cases, SRPS improved from before surgery (5.2 out of 10) to final follow-up (1.4). At final follow-up, 22 patients (88.0%) reported mild pain (0-3), and no one had pain above 6.

Complications

Nine patients had a total of 12 postoperative complications (46.2%): 6 component failures (23.1%), 2 neurologic injuries (7.7%; 1 permanent axillary nerve injury, 1 transient brachial plexus neuritis), 2 cases of adhesive capsulitis (7.7%), and 2 episodes of venous thrombosis (7.7%; 1 superficial, 1 deep) (Table 4). There were no documented infections. Six reoperations (23.1%) were performed for the 6 component failures (2 traumatic dislocations of prosthesis resulting in acute glenoid component failure, 3 cases of atraumatic glenoid loosening, 1 case of humeral stem loosening after periprosthetic fracture). Atraumatic glenoid component loosening occurred a mean (SD) of 40.6 (14.2) months after surgery (range, 20.8-54.2 months).

Surgical Failures

Eight service members underwent MEB. Six patients experienced component failure. Factors contributing to both clinical failure and separation from active duty by means of MEB were evaluated with univariate analysis (Table 5). No statistically significant risk factors, including surgical revision and presence of perioperative complications, were identified.

Discussion

We confirmed that our cohort of young service members (mean age, 45.8 years), who had undergone TSA for glenohumeral arthritis, had a relatively higher rate of component failure (23.1%) and a higher reoperation rate (23.1%) with low rates of return to military duty at short-term to midterm follow-up. Our results parallel those of a limited series with a younger cohort (Table 6).^{7,16,19,21,23,24} The high demand and increased life expectancy of the younger patients with glenohumeral arthritis potentiates the risk of complications, component loosening, and ultimate failure.²⁹ To our knowledge, the present article is the first to report clinical and functional outcomes and perioperative risk profiles in a homogenously young, active military cohort after TSA.

The mean age of our study population (46 years) is one of the lowest in the literature. TSA in younger patients (age, <50-55 years) and older, active patients (>55 years) has received increased attention as a result of the expanding indications and growing popularity of TSA in these groups. Other studies have upheld the efficacy of TSA in achieving predictable pain relief and functional improvement in a diverse and predominantly elderly population.^15,30-34 Alternative treatments, including humeral head resurfacing^15,30,35 and soft-tissue interposition,^15,36-40 have also shown inferior short- and long-term results in terms of longevity and degree of clinical or functional improvement.^31-34,41 In addition, the ream-and-run technique has had promising early results by improving glenohumeral kinematics, pain relief, and shoulder function.^13,42,43 However, although implantation of a glenoid component is avoided in young, active people because of reduced longevity and higher rates of component failure, the trade-offs are inadequately treated glenoid disease, suboptimal pain relief, and progression of glenoid arthritis eventually requiring revision. Furthermore, midterm and long-term survivorship of TSA in general is unknown, and there remain few good options for treating end-stage arthritis in young, active patients.

Our cohort had high rates of complications (46.2%) and revisions (23.1%). Two in 5 patients had postoperative complications, most commonly component failure resulting in reoperation. In the literature, complication rates among young patients who underwent TSA are much lower (4.8%-10.9%).^16,23,24 Our cohort’s most common complication was component failure (23.1%), which was most often attributed to atraumatic, aseptic glenoid component loosening and required reoperation. Previously reported revision rates in a young population that underwent TSA (0%-11%)^16,23,24 were also significantly lower than those in the present analysis (23.1%), underscoring the impact of operative indications, postoperative activity levels, and occupational demands on ultimate failure rates. Interestingly, all revisions in our study were for component failure, whereas previous reports have described a higher rate for infection.²² However, the same studies also found glenoid lucency rates as high as 76% at 10-year follow-up.¹⁶ Furthermore, in a review of 136 TSAs with unsatisfactory outcomes, glenoid loosening was the most common reason for presenting to clinic after surgery.⁴⁴ Specifically, our population had a high rate of glenohumeral arthritis secondary to instability (50.0%) and posttraumatic osteoarthritis (26.9%). For many reasons, outcomes were worse in younger patients with a history of glenohumeral instability³³ than in older patients without a high incidence of instability.⁴⁵ This young cohort with higher demands may have had accelerated polyethylene wear patterns caused by repetitive overhead activity, which may have arisen because of a higher functional profile after surgery and greater patient expectations after arthroplasty. In addition, patients with a history of instability may have altered glenohumeral anatomy, especially with previous arthroscopic or open stabilization procedures. Anatomical changes include excessive posterior glenoid wear, internal rotation contracture, patulous capsular tissue, static or dynamic posterior humeral subluxation, and possible overconstraint after prior stabilization procedures. Almost half of our population had a previous surgery; our patients averaged 1.7 previous surgeries each.

Although estimates of component survivorship at a high-volume civilian tertiary-referral center were as high as 97% at 10 years and 84% at 20 years,^7,16 10-year survivorship in patients with a history of instability was only 61%.3 TSA survivorship in our young, active cohort is already foreseeably dramatically reduced, given the 23.1% revision rate at 28.5-month follow-up. This consideration must be addressed during preoperative counseling with the young patient with glenohumeral arthritis and a history of shoulder instability.

Despite the high rates of complications and revisions in our study, 92.3% of patients were satisfied with surgery, 88.0% experienced minimal persistence of pain (mean 3.8-point decrease on SRPS), and 100% maintained improved ROM at final follow-up. Satisfaction in the young population has varied significantly, from 52% to 95%, generally on the basis of physical activity.^16,22-24 The reasonable rate of postoperative satisfaction in the present analysis is comparable to what has been reported in patients of a similar age (Table 6).^7,16,22 However, despite high satisfaction and pain relief, patients were inconsistently able to return to the upper limits of physical activity required of active-duty military service. In addition, we cannot exclude secondary gain motivations for pursuing medical retirement, similar to that seen in patients receiving worker’s compensation.

Other authors have conversely found more favorable functional outcomes and survivorship rates.^23,24 In a retrospective review of 46 TSAs in patients 55 years or younger, Bartelt and colleagues²⁴ found sustained improvements in pain, ROM, and satisfaction at 7-year follow-up.24 Raiss and colleagues²³ conducted a prospective study of TSA outcomes in 21 patients with a mean age of 55 years and a mean follow-up of 7 years and reported no revisions and only 1 minor complication, a transient brachial plexus palsy.²³ The discrepancy between these studies may reflect different activity levels and underlying pathology between cohorts. The present population is unique in that it represents a particularly difficult confluence of factors for shoulder arthroplasty surgeons. The high activity, significant overhead and lifting occupational demands, and discordant patient expectations of this military cohort place a significant functional burden on the implants, the glenoid component in particular. Furthermore, this patient group has a higher incidence of more complex glenohumeral pathology resulting in instability, posttraumatic, or capsulorrhaphy arthropathy, and multiple prior arthroscopic and open stabilization procedures.

At final follow-up, only 33% of our patients were still on activity duty, 37.5% had completed or were completing medical separation from the military after surgery for persistent shoulder disability, and 37.5% were retired from the military. Five patients (20.8%) deployed after surgery. This young, active cohort of service members who had TSA for glenohumeral arthritis faced a unique set of tremendous physical demands. A retrospective case series investigated return to sport in 100 consecutive patients (mean age, 68.9 years) who were participating in recreational and competitive athletics and underwent unilateral TSA.²¹ The patients were engaged most commonly in swimming (20.4%), golf (16.3%), cycling (16.3%), and fitness training (16.3%). The authors found that, at a mean follow-up of 2.8 years, 49 patients (89%) were able to continue in sports, though 36.7% thought their sport activity was restricted after TSA. In another retrospective case series (61 TSAs), McCarty and colleagues¹⁹ found that 48 patients (71%) were improved in their sports participation, and 50% increased their frequency of participation after surgery.

There are no specific recommendations on returning to military service or high-level sport after surgery. Recommendations on returning to sport after TSA have been based largely on small case series involving specific sports^46,47 and surveys of expert opinion.^17,18 In a survey on postoperative physical activity in young patients after TSA conducted by Healy and colleagues,¹⁷ 35 American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons members recommended avoiding contact and impact sports while permitting return to nonimpact sports, such as swimming, which may still impart significant stress to the glenohumeral joint. In an international survey of 101 shoulder and elbow surgeons, Magnussen and colleagues¹⁸ also found that most recommended avoiding a return to impact sports that require intensive upper extremity demands and permitting full return to sports at preoperative levels. This likely is a result of the perception that most of these patients having TSA are older and have less rigorous involvement in sports at the outset and a lower propensity for adverse patient outcomes. However, these recommendations may place a younger, more high-demand patient at significantly greater risk. The active-duty cohort engages in daily physical training, including push-ups and frequent overhead lifting, which could account for the high failure rates and low incidence of postoperative deployment. Although TSA seems to demonstrate good initial results in terms of return to high-demand activities, the return-to-duty profile in our study highlights the potential pitfalls of TSA in active individuals attempting to return to high-demand preoperative function.

Our analysis was limited by the fact that we used a small patient cohort, contributing to underpowered analysis of the potential risk factors predictive of reoperation and medical discharge. Although our minimum follow-up was 12 months, with the exception of 1 patient who was medically separated at 11.6 months because of shoulder disability, we captured 5 patients (19.2%) who underwent medical separation but who would otherwise be excluded. Therefore, this limitation is not major in that, with a longer minimum follow-up, we would be excluding a significant number of patients with such persistent disability after TSA that they would not be able to return to duty at anywhere near their previous level. In this retrospective study, we were additionally limited to analysis of the data in the medical records and could not control for variables such as surgeon technique, implant choice, and experience. Complete radiographic images were not available, limiting analysis of radiographic outcomes. Given the lack of a standardized preoperative imaging protocol, we could not evaluate glenoid version on axial imaging. It is possible that some patients with early aseptic glenoid loosening had posterior subluxation or a Walch B2 glenoid, which has a higher failure rate.⁴⁸ The strengths of this study include its unique analysis of a homogeneous young, active, high-risk patient cohort within a closed healthcare system. In the military, these patients are subject to intense daily physical and occupational demands. In addition, the clinical and functional outcomes we studied are patient-centered and therefore relevant during preoperative counseling. Further investigations might focus on validated outcome measures and on midterm to long-term TSA outcomes in an active military population vis-à-vis other alternatives for clinical management.

Conclusion

By a mean follow-up of 3.5 years, only a third of the service members had returned to active duty, roughly a third had retired, and more than a third had been medically discharged because of persistent disability attributable to the shoulder. Despite initial improvements in ROM and pain, midterm outcomes were poor. The short-term complication rate (46.2%) and the rate of reoperation for component failure (23.1%) should be emphasized during preoperative counseling.

Although total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) has proved to be a reliable solution in older patients, treatment in younger patients with glenohumeral arthritis remains controversial, and there are still few reliable long-term surgical options.^1-8 These options include abrasion arthroplasty and arthroscopic management,^9,10 biologic glenoid resurfacing,^11,12 and humeral hemiarthroplasty with¹³ or without^14,15 glenoid treatment and anatomical TSA.

In the younger cohort, 20-year TSA survivorship rates up to 84% have been reported, and unsatisfactory subjective outcomes have been unacceptably high.¹⁶ In addition, there is a paucity of literature addressing the impact of TSA on return to sport. Recommendations on returning to an athletic life style are based largely on surveys of expert opinion^17,18 and heterogeneous studies of either older patients (eg, age >50-55 years) who are active^19-21 or younger patients with no defined level of activity.^{5,7,8,16,22-24}

To our knowledge, no one has evaluated the short-term morbidity and clinical outcomes within a young, high-demand patient population, such as the US military. Therefore, we conducted a study to evaluate the clinical success and complications of TSA performed for glenohumeral arthritis in a young, active population. We hypothesized that patients who had undergone TSA would have a low rate of return to duty, an increased rate of component failure, and a higher reoperation rate because of increased upper extremity demands.

Materials and Methods

After obtaining protocol approval from the William Beaumont Army Medical Center Institutional Review Board, we searched the Military Health System (MHS) Management Analysis and Reporting Tool (M2) database to retrospectively review the cases of all tri-service US military service members who had undergone primary anatomical TSA (Current Procedural Terminology code 23472) between January 1, 2007 and June 31, 2014. This was a multisurgeon, multicenter study. Patient exclusion criteria were nonmilitary or retired status at time of surgery; primary surgery consisting of limited glenohumeral resurfacing procedure, hemiarthroplasty, or reverse TSA; surgery for acute proximal humerus fracture; rotator cuff deficiency diagnosed before or during surgery; and insufficient follow-up (eg, <12 months, unless medically separated beforehand).

The M2 database is an established tool that has been used for clinical outcomes research on treatment of a variety of orthopedic conditions.25,26 The Medical Data Repository, which is operated by MHS, is populated by its military healthcare providers. The MHS, which offers worldwide coverage for all beneficiaries either at Department of Defense facilities or purchased using civilian providers, is among the largest known closed healthcare systems.

All active-duty US military service members are uniformly required to adhere to stringent and regularly evaluated physical fitness standards, which typically exceed those of average civilians. Routine physical training is required in the form of aerobic fitness, weight training, tactical field exercises, and core military tasks, such as the ability to march at least 2 miles while carrying heavy fighting loads. In addition to satisfying required height and weight standards, all service members are subject to semiannual service-specific physical fitness evaluations inclusive of timed push-ups, sit-ups, and an aerobic event. Service members may also be required to maintain a level of physical training above these baseline standards, contingent on their branch of service, rank, and military occupational specialty. If a service member is unable to maintain these standards, medical separation may be initiated.

Demographic and occupational data were extracted from the database. These data included age, sex, military rank, and branch of service. Line-by-line analysis of the Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application (Version 22; 3M) electronic medical record was then performed to confirm the underlying diagnosis, surgical procedure, and surgery date. Further chart review yielded additional patient-based factors (eg, laterality, hand dominance, presence and type of prior shoulder surgeries) and surgical factors (eg, surgery indication, implant design). We evaluated clinical and functional outcomes as well as perioperative complications, including both major and minor systemic and local complications as previously described^27,28; preoperative and postoperative range of motion (ROM) and self-reported pain score (SRPS, scale 1-10) as measured by physical therapist and surgeon at follow-up; secondary surgical interventions; timing of return to duty; and postoperative deployment history. The primary outcome measures were revision reoperation after index procedure, and military discharge for persistent shoulder-related disability. Clinical failure was defined as component failure or reoperation. Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) is a formal separation from the military in which it is deemed that a service member is no longer able to fulfill his or her duty because of a medical condition.

Statistical Analysis

Continuous variables were compared using statistical means with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and/or SDs. Categorical data were reported as frequencies or percentages. Univariate analysis was performed to assess the correlation between possible risk factors and the primary outcome measures. P < .05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Demographics

We identified 24 service members (26 shoulders) who had undergone anatomical TSA during the study period (Table 1). Mean (SD) age was 45.8 (4.5) years (range, 35-54 years), and the cohort was predominately male (25/26 shoulders; 96.2%). Most cohort members were of senior enlisted rank (14, 58.3%), and the US Army was the predominant branch of military service (13, 54.2%). The right side was the operative extremity in 7 cases (26.9%), and the dominant shoulder was involved in 6 cases (23.1%). Two patients (8.3%) underwent staged bilateral TSA. Most patients (76.9%) underwent TSA on the nondominant extremity.

Surgical Variables

TSA was indicated for post-instability arthropathy in 13 cases (50.0%), posttraumatic osteoarthritis in 7 cases (26.9%), and unspecified glenohumeral arthritis, which includes primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis, in 5 cases (19.2%) (Table 2). One case was attributed to iatrogenically induced chondrolysis secondary to intra-articular lidocaine pump. Twelve patients (46.2%) had at least 1 previous surgery. Of the shoulders with instability, 10 (76.9%) had undergone a total of 14 surgical stabilization procedures—10 anterior labral repairs, 2 posterior labral repairs, and 2 capsular plications. The other shoulders had undergone a total of 18 procedures, which included 4 rotator cuff repairs and 3 cartilage restoration procedures.

Clinical Outcomes

Mean (SD) follow-up was 41.0 (21.3) months (range, 11.6-97.6 months). All but 1 shoulder (96.2%) had follow-up of 12 months or more (the only patient with shorter follow-up was because of MEB), and 76.9% of patients had follow-up of 24 months or more (4 of the 6 patients with follow-up under 24 months were medically separated) (Table 3). In all cases, mean ROM improved with respect to flexion, abduction, and external rotation. At final follow-up, mean (SD) ROM was 138° (36°) forward flexion (range, 60°-180°), 125° (39°) abduction (range, 45°-180°), 48° (19°) external rotation at 0° abduction (range, 20°-90°), and 80° (9.4°) external rotation at 90° abduction (range, 70°-90°). Preoperative flexion, abduction, and external rotation at 0° and 90° abduction were all improved at final follow-up. The most improvement in ROM occurred within 6 months after surgery.

Overall patient satisfaction with surgery was 92.3% (n = 24). Ultimately, 18 (72.0%) of 25 shoulders with follow-up of 1 year or more were able to return to active duty within 1 year after surgery, though only 10 (45.5%) of 22 with follow-up of 2 years or more remained active 2 years after surgery. Furthermore, 5 patients (20.8%) were deployed after surgery, and all were still on active duty at final follow-up. By final follow-up, 9 (37.5%) of 24 service members were unable to return to military function; 7 had been medically discharged from the military for persistent shoulder disability, and 2 were in the process of being medically discharged.

In all cases, SRPS improved from before surgery (5.2 out of 10) to final follow-up (1.4). At final follow-up, 22 patients (88.0%) reported mild pain (0-3), and no one had pain above 6.

Complications

Nine patients had a total of 12 postoperative complications (46.2%): 6 component failures (23.1%), 2 neurologic injuries (7.7%; 1 permanent axillary nerve injury, 1 transient brachial plexus neuritis), 2 cases of adhesive capsulitis (7.7%), and 2 episodes of venous thrombosis (7.7%; 1 superficial, 1 deep) (Table 4). There were no documented infections. Six reoperations (23.1%) were performed for the 6 component failures (2 traumatic dislocations of prosthesis resulting in acute glenoid component failure, 3 cases of atraumatic glenoid loosening, 1 case of humeral stem loosening after periprosthetic fracture). Atraumatic glenoid component loosening occurred a mean (SD) of 40.6 (14.2) months after surgery (range, 20.8-54.2 months).

Surgical Failures

Eight service members underwent MEB. Six patients experienced component failure. Factors contributing to both clinical failure and separation from active duty by means of MEB were evaluated with univariate analysis (Table 5). No statistically significant risk factors, including surgical revision and presence of perioperative complications, were identified.

Discussion

We confirmed that our cohort of young service members (mean age, 45.8 years), who had undergone TSA for glenohumeral arthritis, had a relatively higher rate of component failure (23.1%) and a higher reoperation rate (23.1%) with low rates of return to military duty at short-term to midterm follow-up. Our results parallel those of a limited series with a younger cohort (Table 6).^{7,16,19,21,23,24} The high demand and increased life expectancy of the younger patients with glenohumeral arthritis potentiates the risk of complications, component loosening, and ultimate failure.²⁹ To our knowledge, the present article is the first to report clinical and functional outcomes and perioperative risk profiles in a homogenously young, active military cohort after TSA.

The mean age of our study population (46 years) is one of the lowest in the literature. TSA in younger patients (age, <50-55 years) and older, active patients (>55 years) has received increased attention as a result of the expanding indications and growing popularity of TSA in these groups. Other studies have upheld the efficacy of TSA in achieving predictable pain relief and functional improvement in a diverse and predominantly elderly population.^15,30-34 Alternative treatments, including humeral head resurfacing^15,30,35 and soft-tissue interposition,^15,36-40 have also shown inferior short- and long-term results in terms of longevity and degree of clinical or functional improvement.^31-34,41 In addition, the ream-and-run technique has had promising early results by improving glenohumeral kinematics, pain relief, and shoulder function.^13,42,43 However, although implantation of a glenoid component is avoided in young, active people because of reduced longevity and higher rates of component failure, the trade-offs are inadequately treated glenoid disease, suboptimal pain relief, and progression of glenoid arthritis eventually requiring revision. Furthermore, midterm and long-term survivorship of TSA in general is unknown, and there remain few good options for treating end-stage arthritis in young, active patients.

Our cohort had high rates of complications (46.2%) and revisions (23.1%). Two in 5 patients had postoperative complications, most commonly component failure resulting in reoperation. In the literature, complication rates among young patients who underwent TSA are much lower (4.8%-10.9%).^16,23,24 Our cohort’s most common complication was component failure (23.1%), which was most often attributed to atraumatic, aseptic glenoid component loosening and required reoperation. Previously reported revision rates in a young population that underwent TSA (0%-11%)^16,23,24 were also significantly lower than those in the present analysis (23.1%), underscoring the impact of operative indications, postoperative activity levels, and occupational demands on ultimate failure rates. Interestingly, all revisions in our study were for component failure, whereas previous reports have described a higher rate for infection.²² However, the same studies also found glenoid lucency rates as high as 76% at 10-year follow-up.¹⁶ Furthermore, in a review of 136 TSAs with unsatisfactory outcomes, glenoid loosening was the most common reason for presenting to clinic after surgery.⁴⁴ Specifically, our population had a high rate of glenohumeral arthritis secondary to instability (50.0%) and posttraumatic osteoarthritis (26.9%). For many reasons, outcomes were worse in younger patients with a history of glenohumeral instability³³ than in older patients without a high incidence of instability.⁴⁵ This young cohort with higher demands may have had accelerated polyethylene wear patterns caused by repetitive overhead activity, which may have arisen because of a higher functional profile after surgery and greater patient expectations after arthroplasty. In addition, patients with a history of instability may have altered glenohumeral anatomy, especially with previous arthroscopic or open stabilization procedures. Anatomical changes include excessive posterior glenoid wear, internal rotation contracture, patulous capsular tissue, static or dynamic posterior humeral subluxation, and possible overconstraint after prior stabilization procedures. Almost half of our population had a previous surgery; our patients averaged 1.7 previous surgeries each.

Although estimates of component survivorship at a high-volume civilian tertiary-referral center were as high as 97% at 10 years and 84% at 20 years,^7,16 10-year survivorship in patients with a history of instability was only 61%.3 TSA survivorship in our young, active cohort is already foreseeably dramatically reduced, given the 23.1% revision rate at 28.5-month follow-up. This consideration must be addressed during preoperative counseling with the young patient with glenohumeral arthritis and a history of shoulder instability.

Despite the high rates of complications and revisions in our study, 92.3% of patients were satisfied with surgery, 88.0% experienced minimal persistence of pain (mean 3.8-point decrease on SRPS), and 100% maintained improved ROM at final follow-up. Satisfaction in the young population has varied significantly, from 52% to 95%, generally on the basis of physical activity.^16,22-24 The reasonable rate of postoperative satisfaction in the present analysis is comparable to what has been reported in patients of a similar age (Table 6).^7,16,22 However, despite high satisfaction and pain relief, patients were inconsistently able to return to the upper limits of physical activity required of active-duty military service. In addition, we cannot exclude secondary gain motivations for pursuing medical retirement, similar to that seen in patients receiving worker’s compensation.

Other authors have conversely found more favorable functional outcomes and survivorship rates.^23,24 In a retrospective review of 46 TSAs in patients 55 years or younger, Bartelt and colleagues²⁴ found sustained improvements in pain, ROM, and satisfaction at 7-year follow-up.24 Raiss and colleagues²³ conducted a prospective study of TSA outcomes in 21 patients with a mean age of 55 years and a mean follow-up of 7 years and reported no revisions and only 1 minor complication, a transient brachial plexus palsy.²³ The discrepancy between these studies may reflect different activity levels and underlying pathology between cohorts. The present population is unique in that it represents a particularly difficult confluence of factors for shoulder arthroplasty surgeons. The high activity, significant overhead and lifting occupational demands, and discordant patient expectations of this military cohort place a significant functional burden on the implants, the glenoid component in particular. Furthermore, this patient group has a higher incidence of more complex glenohumeral pathology resulting in instability, posttraumatic, or capsulorrhaphy arthropathy, and multiple prior arthroscopic and open stabilization procedures.

At final follow-up, only 33% of our patients were still on activity duty, 37.5% had completed or were completing medical separation from the military after surgery for persistent shoulder disability, and 37.5% were retired from the military. Five patients (20.8%) deployed after surgery. This young, active cohort of service members who had TSA for glenohumeral arthritis faced a unique set of tremendous physical demands. A retrospective case series investigated return to sport in 100 consecutive patients (mean age, 68.9 years) who were participating in recreational and competitive athletics and underwent unilateral TSA.²¹ The patients were engaged most commonly in swimming (20.4%), golf (16.3%), cycling (16.3%), and fitness training (16.3%). The authors found that, at a mean follow-up of 2.8 years, 49 patients (89%) were able to continue in sports, though 36.7% thought their sport activity was restricted after TSA. In another retrospective case series (61 TSAs), McCarty and colleagues¹⁹ found that 48 patients (71%) were improved in their sports participation, and 50% increased their frequency of participation after surgery.

There are no specific recommendations on returning to military service or high-level sport after surgery. Recommendations on returning to sport after TSA have been based largely on small case series involving specific sports^46,47 and surveys of expert opinion.^17,18 In a survey on postoperative physical activity in young patients after TSA conducted by Healy and colleagues,¹⁷ 35 American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons members recommended avoiding contact and impact sports while permitting return to nonimpact sports, such as swimming, which may still impart significant stress to the glenohumeral joint. In an international survey of 101 shoulder and elbow surgeons, Magnussen and colleagues¹⁸ also found that most recommended avoiding a return to impact sports that require intensive upper extremity demands and permitting full return to sports at preoperative levels. This likely is a result of the perception that most of these patients having TSA are older and have less rigorous involvement in sports at the outset and a lower propensity for adverse patient outcomes. However, these recommendations may place a younger, more high-demand patient at significantly greater risk. The active-duty cohort engages in daily physical training, including push-ups and frequent overhead lifting, which could account for the high failure rates and low incidence of postoperative deployment. Although TSA seems to demonstrate good initial results in terms of return to high-demand activities, the return-to-duty profile in our study highlights the potential pitfalls of TSA in active individuals attempting to return to high-demand preoperative function.

Our analysis was limited by the fact that we used a small patient cohort, contributing to underpowered analysis of the potential risk factors predictive of reoperation and medical discharge. Although our minimum follow-up was 12 months, with the exception of 1 patient who was medically separated at 11.6 months because of shoulder disability, we captured 5 patients (19.2%) who underwent medical separation but who would otherwise be excluded. Therefore, this limitation is not major in that, with a longer minimum follow-up, we would be excluding a significant number of patients with such persistent disability after TSA that they would not be able to return to duty at anywhere near their previous level. In this retrospective study, we were additionally limited to analysis of the data in the medical records and could not control for variables such as surgeon technique, implant choice, and experience. Complete radiographic images were not available, limiting analysis of radiographic outcomes. Given the lack of a standardized preoperative imaging protocol, we could not evaluate glenoid version on axial imaging. It is possible that some patients with early aseptic glenoid loosening had posterior subluxation or a Walch B2 glenoid, which has a higher failure rate.⁴⁸ The strengths of this study include its unique analysis of a homogeneous young, active, high-risk patient cohort within a closed healthcare system. In the military, these patients are subject to intense daily physical and occupational demands. In addition, the clinical and functional outcomes we studied are patient-centered and therefore relevant during preoperative counseling. Further investigations might focus on validated outcome measures and on midterm to long-term TSA outcomes in an active military population vis-à-vis other alternatives for clinical management.

Conclusion

By a mean follow-up of 3.5 years, only a third of the service members had returned to active duty, roughly a third had retired, and more than a third had been medically discharged because of persistent disability attributable to the shoulder. Despite initial improvements in ROM and pain, midterm outcomes were poor. The short-term complication rate (46.2%) and the rate of reoperation for component failure (23.1%) should be emphasized during preoperative counseling.

The humeral avulsion of glenohumeral ligament (HAGL) lesion has been recognized as a cause of recurrent shoulder instability. In 1942, Nicola¹ was the first to describe this lesion, in a small case series of avulsions of the anterior band of the inferior glenohumeral ligament from the humeral neck secondary to a dislocation injury. In 1988, Bach and colleagues² described it in 2 patients with recurrent anterior dislocations. Wolf and colleagues³ were the first to apply the term HAGL to the injury, in 1995.

HAGL lesion incidence ranges from 1% to 9%, but many authors think the lesion is underdiagnosed.^3-5 It occurs in isolation or in combination with other injuries, and it is commonly identified on recurrence of instability. Bui-Mansfield and colleagues⁶ found that 11% of patients with a diagnosis of HAGL lesion previously had surgery on the same shoulder, whereas for 62% the lesion was associated with other, concurrent lesions, including labral tears (18, 25%), rotator cuff tears (16, 23%), and Hill-Sachs deformities (12, 17%).

Most young athletes who undergo nonoperative therapy for a HAGL lesion continue to experience pain and/or instability that then requires surgical intervention.⁴ To our knowledge, there are no reports of return to full function in young competitive athletes or return to manual labor after nonoperative management of a HAGL lesion.

In this article, we report the case of a US Navy SEAL who sustained a traction injury causing an axillary nerve injury and a HAGL lesion. Successful nonoperative management allowed him to return to full duty. The patient provided written informed consent for print and electronic publication of this case report.

Case Report

An otherwise healthy 26-year-old Navy SEAL presented with pain and significant weakness in the right (dominant) upper extremity after an injury in a training exercise. The shoulder sustained a traction injury when the man’s fast-moving marine attack craft was in a collision and he was trying not to be thrown off. He reported having a sense of dislocation yet never required a reduction.

Physical examination revealed severe weakness with shoulder abduction, external rotation, and forward flexion; inability to contract the deltoid muscle; and complete numbness along the cutaneous distribution of the axillary nerve. On neurovascular examination, the right upper extremity was otherwise intact. The patient had complete passive range of motion (ROM) with apprehension in abduction with external rotation along with anterior laxity and normal posterior stability.

Standard shoulder radiographs showed no bony abnormalities and a concentrically reduced glenohumeral joint. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), reviewed by a staff musculoskeletal radiologist and a sports fellowship–trained orthopedic surgeon, showed a greater tuberosity contusion, a partial tear of the infraspinatus, and a HAGL lesion (Figure 1).

The patient was counseled toward surgical intervention to prevent symptoms of recurrent instability. A detailed discussion ensued about whether to proceed with surgery immediately or to pursue temporary nonoperative treatment to allow for assessment and return of deltoid function. Patient and surgeon decided to delay operative intervention because of concerns about the patient’s ability to effectively rehabilitate while still having a compromised axillary nerve after surgery. The recommendation was to delay initial electromyographic (EMG) and nerve conduction velocity testing at least 4 weeks to allow for completion of Wallerian degeneration and more accurate assessment of the axillary nerve.⁷ Physical therapy for gentle ROM (excluding external rotation) and isometric rotator cuff exercises were initiated.

Five weeks after injury, the patient left the area to attend a 2-month nonphysical training course and continued rehabilitation and orthopedic follow-up at another military medical facility. Six weeks after injury, initial EMG testing revealed the expected axillary neuropraxia. In addition, some marginal improvement in ROM was noted, but deltoid function was still very limited.

Ten weeks after injury, clinical inspection revealed deltoid wasting. Active shoulder ROM was limited, and deltoid strength was 3/5, though the patient was able to perform a standard push-up without difficulty and showed no sign of laxity or apprehension on shoulder examination. Repeat EMG testing revealed axillary nerve denervation with no sign of regeneration. Twelve weeks after injury, MRA showed reorganization and partial healing of the HAGL lesion relative to the prior study (Figure 2).

On the patient’s return from training, 15 weeks after injury, he had improved active ROM and 4+/5 deltoid strength. Axillary nerve sensation was still decreased but markedly improved. Physical examination revealed no significant shoulder laxity or apprehension, and the patient denied feelings of instability. Activities were advanced to include an organized strengthening program.

Six months after injury, the patient was cleared to return to his unit with only mild physical restriction. Function continued to steadily improve. After 9 months, he was cleared for full, unrestricted duty. Although he still demonstrated slight asymmetric weakness in the right deltoid with continued muscular atrophy, examination findings were otherwise normal, and he was back to full activities without significant symptoms.

Eleven months after injury, MRI showed healing of the HAGL lesion (Figure 3). At 17 months, EMG testing revealed significant interval improvement in axillary motor unit potentials but still about a 50% decrement compared with the noninjured side. The patient denied any motor or sensory deficits and any instability events since his injury. He continued with full function as an active-duty Navy SEAL.

Discussion

Nonoperative management has been used for injuries to the inferior glenohumeral ligament complex when there is no humeral detachment but generally has been reserved for low-demand patients and patients who cannot tolerate surgical intervention.⁴ Detached lesions may initially be managed nonoperatively with physical therapy and rehabilitation, but the rate of recurrent instability after nonoperative management of a known HAGL lesion remains unknown.⁴ Most active young people are expected to have persistent pain and/or instability and require surgical intervention. Both arthroscopic and open methods have been used successfully.^3,8-15 Persistent instability is often the primary complaint leading to a diagnosis of a HAGL lesion.⁴ The patient in this case report neither demonstrated nor reported any instability event after his 6-month period of nonoperative management, despite his young age and elite physical requirements.

To our knowledge, there are no reports of successful nonoperative management of a known symptomatic HAGL lesion in a high-demand athlete. Although we do not routinely recommend nonoperative treatment for cases such as the one reported here, the decision to delay this Navy SEAL’s surgical management was made out of concern about potential complications of postoperative rehabilitation given the concurrent axillary nerve injury.

With anterior shoulder dislocations, multiple concomitant shoulder injuries, including a HAGL lesion, are not uncommon.^6,16 With HAGL lesions, associated rotator cuff injuries occur at a rate as high as 23%.⁶ Our patient had a concurrent partial rotator cuff tear but also an axillary nerve traction injury. To our knowledge, the literature has not described axillary nerve injury specifically in association with a HAGL lesion, though it is well documented and maintained as a possible concurrent injury with anterior shoulder instability events.¹⁷ Robinson and colleagues¹⁶ found a 5.8% incidence of a clinically apparent neurologic deficit after traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation in 3633 dislocations, about 75% of which were isolated axillary nerve injuries. They also reported a 25.7% rate of rotator cuff tear or greater tuberosity fracture, either of which significantly increased the likelihood of a neurologic deficit in their study.

When nerve continuity remains, functional recovery occurs after 3 to 6 months, or within weeks in some cases.^18-20 Nerve injuries in continuity but with persistent, severe clinical deficits may require surgical exploration with subsequent neurolysis and/or repair.^19-21 Our patient showed gradual axillary nerve recovery from a clinical standpoint. By 6 months after injury, despite continued muscle atrophy and decreased axillary nerve sensation, he had returned to full duty as a Navy SEAL. By 17 months, atrophy was markedly improved, and strength and ROM had subjectively returned, despite there being significant conduction amplitude losses, up to 50% of the contralateral side, on EMG testing.

This case represents a scenario in which likely initial surgical management was precluded by a concomitant injury, and the patient had a serendipitous outcome. It is possible the axillary neuropraxia and subsequent temporary deltoid dysfunction provided a unique environment that was conducive to the healing of the HAGL lesion. With classic Bankart lesions, many surgeons prefer to use aggressive early surgical treatment in first-time dislocators, especially elite athletes, in an attempt to avoid recurrent instability.^22-26 However, some have suggested that initial immobilization after acute injury may lead to successful nonoperative management.²⁷ Perhaps our case report raises the question as to whether a prolonged period of initial immobilization can prove successful in management of a HAGL lesion. Prospective studies comparing early surgical and nonoperative treatment of these challenging lesions are warranted.

We have reported a case of successful nonoperative management of a HAGL lesion in an active-duty Navy SEAL with concomitant shoulder injuries. This case could suggest that a trial of initial nonoperative management should be considered for injuries that involve a HAGL lesion when there are concerns about the patient’s ability to complete functional rehabilitation because of the combined injuries of the shoulder.

The humeral avulsion of glenohumeral ligament (HAGL) lesion has been recognized as a cause of recurrent shoulder instability. In 1942, Nicola¹ was the first to describe this lesion, in a small case series of avulsions of the anterior band of the inferior glenohumeral ligament from the humeral neck secondary to a dislocation injury. In 1988, Bach and colleagues² described it in 2 patients with recurrent anterior dislocations. Wolf and colleagues³ were the first to apply the term HAGL to the injury, in 1995.

HAGL lesion incidence ranges from 1% to 9%, but many authors think the lesion is underdiagnosed.^3-5 It occurs in isolation or in combination with other injuries, and it is commonly identified on recurrence of instability. Bui-Mansfield and colleagues⁶ found that 11% of patients with a diagnosis of HAGL lesion previously had surgery on the same shoulder, whereas for 62% the lesion was associated with other, concurrent lesions, including labral tears (18, 25%), rotator cuff tears (16, 23%), and Hill-Sachs deformities (12, 17%).

Most young athletes who undergo nonoperative therapy for a HAGL lesion continue to experience pain and/or instability that then requires surgical intervention.⁴ To our knowledge, there are no reports of return to full function in young competitive athletes or return to manual labor after nonoperative management of a HAGL lesion.

In this article, we report the case of a US Navy SEAL who sustained a traction injury causing an axillary nerve injury and a HAGL lesion. Successful nonoperative management allowed him to return to full duty. The patient provided written informed consent for print and electronic publication of this case report.

Case Report

An otherwise healthy 26-year-old Navy SEAL presented with pain and significant weakness in the right (dominant) upper extremity after an injury in a training exercise. The shoulder sustained a traction injury when the man’s fast-moving marine attack craft was in a collision and he was trying not to be thrown off. He reported having a sense of dislocation yet never required a reduction.

Physical examination revealed severe weakness with shoulder abduction, external rotation, and forward flexion; inability to contract the deltoid muscle; and complete numbness along the cutaneous distribution of the axillary nerve. On neurovascular examination, the right upper extremity was otherwise intact. The patient had complete passive range of motion (ROM) with apprehension in abduction with external rotation along with anterior laxity and normal posterior stability.

Standard shoulder radiographs showed no bony abnormalities and a concentrically reduced glenohumeral joint. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), reviewed by a staff musculoskeletal radiologist and a sports fellowship–trained orthopedic surgeon, showed a greater tuberosity contusion, a partial tear of the infraspinatus, and a HAGL lesion (Figure 1).

The patient was counseled toward surgical intervention to prevent symptoms of recurrent instability. A detailed discussion ensued about whether to proceed with surgery immediately or to pursue temporary nonoperative treatment to allow for assessment and return of deltoid function. Patient and surgeon decided to delay operative intervention because of concerns about the patient’s ability to effectively rehabilitate while still having a compromised axillary nerve after surgery. The recommendation was to delay initial electromyographic (EMG) and nerve conduction velocity testing at least 4 weeks to allow for completion of Wallerian degeneration and more accurate assessment of the axillary nerve.⁷ Physical therapy for gentle ROM (excluding external rotation) and isometric rotator cuff exercises were initiated.

Five weeks after injury, the patient left the area to attend a 2-month nonphysical training course and continued rehabilitation and orthopedic follow-up at another military medical facility. Six weeks after injury, initial EMG testing revealed the expected axillary neuropraxia. In addition, some marginal improvement in ROM was noted, but deltoid function was still very limited.

Ten weeks after injury, clinical inspection revealed deltoid wasting. Active shoulder ROM was limited, and deltoid strength was 3/5, though the patient was able to perform a standard push-up without difficulty and showed no sign of laxity or apprehension on shoulder examination. Repeat EMG testing revealed axillary nerve denervation with no sign of regeneration. Twelve weeks after injury, MRA showed reorganization and partial healing of the HAGL lesion relative to the prior study (Figure 2).

On the patient’s return from training, 15 weeks after injury, he had improved active ROM and 4+/5 deltoid strength. Axillary nerve sensation was still decreased but markedly improved. Physical examination revealed no significant shoulder laxity or apprehension, and the patient denied feelings of instability. Activities were advanced to include an organized strengthening program.

Six months after injury, the patient was cleared to return to his unit with only mild physical restriction. Function continued to steadily improve. After 9 months, he was cleared for full, unrestricted duty. Although he still demonstrated slight asymmetric weakness in the right deltoid with continued muscular atrophy, examination findings were otherwise normal, and he was back to full activities without significant symptoms.

Eleven months after injury, MRI showed healing of the HAGL lesion (Figure 3). At 17 months, EMG testing revealed significant interval improvement in axillary motor unit potentials but still about a 50% decrement compared with the noninjured side. The patient denied any motor or sensory deficits and any instability events since his injury. He continued with full function as an active-duty Navy SEAL.

Discussion

Nonoperative management has been used for injuries to the inferior glenohumeral ligament complex when there is no humeral detachment but generally has been reserved for low-demand patients and patients who cannot tolerate surgical intervention.⁴ Detached lesions may initially be managed nonoperatively with physical therapy and rehabilitation, but the rate of recurrent instability after nonoperative management of a known HAGL lesion remains unknown.⁴ Most active young people are expected to have persistent pain and/or instability and require surgical intervention. Both arthroscopic and open methods have been used successfully.^3,8-15 Persistent instability is often the primary complaint leading to a diagnosis of a HAGL lesion.⁴ The patient in this case report neither demonstrated nor reported any instability event after his 6-month period of nonoperative management, despite his young age and elite physical requirements.

To our knowledge, there are no reports of successful nonoperative management of a known symptomatic HAGL lesion in a high-demand athlete. Although we do not routinely recommend nonoperative treatment for cases such as the one reported here, the decision to delay this Navy SEAL’s surgical management was made out of concern about potential complications of postoperative rehabilitation given the concurrent axillary nerve injury.

With anterior shoulder dislocations, multiple concomitant shoulder injuries, including a HAGL lesion, are not uncommon.^6,16 With HAGL lesions, associated rotator cuff injuries occur at a rate as high as 23%.⁶ Our patient had a concurrent partial rotator cuff tear but also an axillary nerve traction injury. To our knowledge, the literature has not described axillary nerve injury specifically in association with a HAGL lesion, though it is well documented and maintained as a possible concurrent injury with anterior shoulder instability events.¹⁷ Robinson and colleagues¹⁶ found a 5.8% incidence of a clinically apparent neurologic deficit after traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation in 3633 dislocations, about 75% of which were isolated axillary nerve injuries. They also reported a 25.7% rate of rotator cuff tear or greater tuberosity fracture, either of which significantly increased the likelihood of a neurologic deficit in their study.

When nerve continuity remains, functional recovery occurs after 3 to 6 months, or within weeks in some cases.^18-20 Nerve injuries in continuity but with persistent, severe clinical deficits may require surgical exploration with subsequent neurolysis and/or repair.^19-21 Our patient showed gradual axillary nerve recovery from a clinical standpoint. By 6 months after injury, despite continued muscle atrophy and decreased axillary nerve sensation, he had returned to full duty as a Navy SEAL. By 17 months, atrophy was markedly improved, and strength and ROM had subjectively returned, despite there being significant conduction amplitude losses, up to 50% of the contralateral side, on EMG testing.

This case represents a scenario in which likely initial surgical management was precluded by a concomitant injury, and the patient had a serendipitous outcome. It is possible the axillary neuropraxia and subsequent temporary deltoid dysfunction provided a unique environment that was conducive to the healing of the HAGL lesion. With classic Bankart lesions, many surgeons prefer to use aggressive early surgical treatment in first-time dislocators, especially elite athletes, in an attempt to avoid recurrent instability.^22-26 However, some have suggested that initial immobilization after acute injury may lead to successful nonoperative management.²⁷ Perhaps our case report raises the question as to whether a prolonged period of initial immobilization can prove successful in management of a HAGL lesion. Prospective studies comparing early surgical and nonoperative treatment of these challenging lesions are warranted.

We have reported a case of successful nonoperative management of a HAGL lesion in an active-duty Navy SEAL with concomitant shoulder injuries. This case could suggest that a trial of initial nonoperative management should be considered for injuries that involve a HAGL lesion when there are concerns about the patient’s ability to complete functional rehabilitation because of the combined injuries of the shoulder.

The humeral avulsion of glenohumeral ligament (HAGL) lesion has been recognized as a cause of recurrent shoulder instability. In 1942, Nicola¹ was the first to describe this lesion, in a small case series of avulsions of the anterior band of the inferior glenohumeral ligament from the humeral neck secondary to a dislocation injury. In 1988, Bach and colleagues² described it in 2 patients with recurrent anterior dislocations. Wolf and colleagues³ were the first to apply the term HAGL to the injury, in 1995.

HAGL lesion incidence ranges from 1% to 9%, but many authors think the lesion is underdiagnosed.^3-5 It occurs in isolation or in combination with other injuries, and it is commonly identified on recurrence of instability. Bui-Mansfield and colleagues⁶ found that 11% of patients with a diagnosis of HAGL lesion previously had surgery on the same shoulder, whereas for 62% the lesion was associated with other, concurrent lesions, including labral tears (18, 25%), rotator cuff tears (16, 23%), and Hill-Sachs deformities (12, 17%).

Most young athletes who undergo nonoperative therapy for a HAGL lesion continue to experience pain and/or instability that then requires surgical intervention.⁴ To our knowledge, there are no reports of return to full function in young competitive athletes or return to manual labor after nonoperative management of a HAGL lesion.

In this article, we report the case of a US Navy SEAL who sustained a traction injury causing an axillary nerve injury and a HAGL lesion. Successful nonoperative management allowed him to return to full duty. The patient provided written informed consent for print and electronic publication of this case report.

Case Report

An otherwise healthy 26-year-old Navy SEAL presented with pain and significant weakness in the right (dominant) upper extremity after an injury in a training exercise. The shoulder sustained a traction injury when the man’s fast-moving marine attack craft was in a collision and he was trying not to be thrown off. He reported having a sense of dislocation yet never required a reduction.

Physical examination revealed severe weakness with shoulder abduction, external rotation, and forward flexion; inability to contract the deltoid muscle; and complete numbness along the cutaneous distribution of the axillary nerve. On neurovascular examination, the right upper extremity was otherwise intact. The patient had complete passive range of motion (ROM) with apprehension in abduction with external rotation along with anterior laxity and normal posterior stability.

Standard shoulder radiographs showed no bony abnormalities and a concentrically reduced glenohumeral joint. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), reviewed by a staff musculoskeletal radiologist and a sports fellowship–trained orthopedic surgeon, showed a greater tuberosity contusion, a partial tear of the infraspinatus, and a HAGL lesion (Figure 1).

The patient was counseled toward surgical intervention to prevent symptoms of recurrent instability. A detailed discussion ensued about whether to proceed with surgery immediately or to pursue temporary nonoperative treatment to allow for assessment and return of deltoid function. Patient and surgeon decided to delay operative intervention because of concerns about the patient’s ability to effectively rehabilitate while still having a compromised axillary nerve after surgery. The recommendation was to delay initial electromyographic (EMG) and nerve conduction velocity testing at least 4 weeks to allow for completion of Wallerian degeneration and more accurate assessment of the axillary nerve.⁷ Physical therapy for gentle ROM (excluding external rotation) and isometric rotator cuff exercises were initiated.

Five weeks after injury, the patient left the area to attend a 2-month nonphysical training course and continued rehabilitation and orthopedic follow-up at another military medical facility. Six weeks after injury, initial EMG testing revealed the expected axillary neuropraxia. In addition, some marginal improvement in ROM was noted, but deltoid function was still very limited.

Ten weeks after injury, clinical inspection revealed deltoid wasting. Active shoulder ROM was limited, and deltoid strength was 3/5, though the patient was able to perform a standard push-up without difficulty and showed no sign of laxity or apprehension on shoulder examination. Repeat EMG testing revealed axillary nerve denervation with no sign of regeneration. Twelve weeks after injury, MRA showed reorganization and partial healing of the HAGL lesion relative to the prior study (Figure 2).

On the patient’s return from training, 15 weeks after injury, he had improved active ROM and 4+/5 deltoid strength. Axillary nerve sensation was still decreased but markedly improved. Physical examination revealed no significant shoulder laxity or apprehension, and the patient denied feelings of instability. Activities were advanced to include an organized strengthening program.

Six months after injury, the patient was cleared to return to his unit with only mild physical restriction. Function continued to steadily improve. After 9 months, he was cleared for full, unrestricted duty. Although he still demonstrated slight asymmetric weakness in the right deltoid with continued muscular atrophy, examination findings were otherwise normal, and he was back to full activities without significant symptoms.

Eleven months after injury, MRI showed healing of the HAGL lesion (Figure 3). At 17 months, EMG testing revealed significant interval improvement in axillary motor unit potentials but still about a 50% decrement compared with the noninjured side. The patient denied any motor or sensory deficits and any instability events since his injury. He continued with full function as an active-duty Navy SEAL.

Discussion

Nonoperative management has been used for injuries to the inferior glenohumeral ligament complex when there is no humeral detachment but generally has been reserved for low-demand patients and patients who cannot tolerate surgical intervention.⁴ Detached lesions may initially be managed nonoperatively with physical therapy and rehabilitation, but the rate of recurrent instability after nonoperative management of a known HAGL lesion remains unknown.⁴ Most active young people are expected to have persistent pain and/or instability and require surgical intervention. Both arthroscopic and open methods have been used successfully.^3,8-15 Persistent instability is often the primary complaint leading to a diagnosis of a HAGL lesion.⁴ The patient in this case report neither demonstrated nor reported any instability event after his 6-month period of nonoperative management, despite his young age and elite physical requirements.

To our knowledge, there are no reports of successful nonoperative management of a known symptomatic HAGL lesion in a high-demand athlete. Although we do not routinely recommend nonoperative treatment for cases such as the one reported here, the decision to delay this Navy SEAL’s surgical management was made out of concern about potential complications of postoperative rehabilitation given the concurrent axillary nerve injury.

With anterior shoulder dislocations, multiple concomitant shoulder injuries, including a HAGL lesion, are not uncommon.^6,16 With HAGL lesions, associated rotator cuff injuries occur at a rate as high as 23%.⁶ Our patient had a concurrent partial rotator cuff tear but also an axillary nerve traction injury. To our knowledge, the literature has not described axillary nerve injury specifically in association with a HAGL lesion, though it is well documented and maintained as a possible concurrent injury with anterior shoulder instability events.¹⁷ Robinson and colleagues¹⁶ found a 5.8% incidence of a clinically apparent neurologic deficit after traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation in 3633 dislocations, about 75% of which were isolated axillary nerve injuries. They also reported a 25.7% rate of rotator cuff tear or greater tuberosity fracture, either of which significantly increased the likelihood of a neurologic deficit in their study.

When nerve continuity remains, functional recovery occurs after 3 to 6 months, or within weeks in some cases.^18-20 Nerve injuries in continuity but with persistent, severe clinical deficits may require surgical exploration with subsequent neurolysis and/or repair.^19-21 Our patient showed gradual axillary nerve recovery from a clinical standpoint. By 6 months after injury, despite continued muscle atrophy and decreased axillary nerve sensation, he had returned to full duty as a Navy SEAL. By 17 months, atrophy was markedly improved, and strength and ROM had subjectively returned, despite there being significant conduction amplitude losses, up to 50% of the contralateral side, on EMG testing.

This case represents a scenario in which likely initial surgical management was precluded by a concomitant injury, and the patient had a serendipitous outcome. It is possible the axillary neuropraxia and subsequent temporary deltoid dysfunction provided a unique environment that was conducive to the healing of the HAGL lesion. With classic Bankart lesions, many surgeons prefer to use aggressive early surgical treatment in first-time dislocators, especially elite athletes, in an attempt to avoid recurrent instability.^22-26 However, some have suggested that initial immobilization after acute injury may lead to successful nonoperative management.²⁷ Perhaps our case report raises the question as to whether a prolonged period of initial immobilization can prove successful in management of a HAGL lesion. Prospective studies comparing early surgical and nonoperative treatment of these challenging lesions are warranted.

We have reported a case of successful nonoperative management of a HAGL lesion in an active-duty Navy SEAL with concomitant shoulder injuries. This case could suggest that a trial of initial nonoperative management should be considered for injuries that involve a HAGL lesion when there are concerns about the patient’s ability to complete functional rehabilitation because of the combined injuries of the shoulder.

Rotator cuff tears are very common, and 250,000 to 500,000 rotator cuff repairs are performed in the United States each year.^1,2 In most cases, a complete repair of even large or massive tears can be achieved. However, a subset of patients exist in whom the glenohumeral joint has minimal degenerative changes and the rotator cuff tendon is either irreparable or very poor quality and unlikely to heal (ie, failed previous cuff repair). Some authors have advocated for reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) in these patients despite the lack of glenohumeral arthritis. However, due to the permanent destruction of the glenohumeral articular surfaces, complication rates, and concerns about implant longevity with RSA, we believe the superior capsular reconstruction (SCR) is a viable alternative in patients in whom joint preservation is appropriate based on age limitations and/or activity requirements.³

The SCR was first described by Mihata and colleagues4 as a means to reconstruct the superior capsule in shoulders with large, irreparable posterosuperior rotator cuff tears. Originally described using a fascia lata autograft, our technique has been adapted to incorporate a dermal allograft, which limits donor site morbidity and operative time. In most cases, the dermal allograft is fixed to the normal anatomic attachments of the superior glenoid just medial to the superior labrum, laterally to the greater tuberosity, and posteriorly with side-to-side sutures to the remaining rotator cuff. If there is a robust band of “comma” tissue anteriorly, we fix the anterior margin of the dermal graft to this with side-to-side sutures. The comma tissue represents the medial sling of the biceps tendon and connects the upper subscapularis tendon to the anterior supraspinatus. In most cases, this tissue is intact after repair of the subscapularis tendon.

Technique

The patient is positioned in either the lateral decubitus or beach chair position. The arm is positioned in 20° to 30° of abduction and 20° to 30° of forward flexion. A diagnostic arthroscopy is performed through a posterior glenohumeral viewing portal. The subscapularis is visualized and repaired if torn. A biceps tenodesis is performed in most cases, as there is often a tear of the subscapularis, tear or instability of the biceps tendon, and/or a compromised attachment of the biceps root.

Attention is turned to the subacromial space. Posterior viewing and lateral working portals are established. A 10-mm flexible cannula (PassPort; Arthrex) is placed in the lateral portal to aid with suture management and graft passage. A limited subacromial decompression is performed that preserves the coracoacromial arch. The rotator cuff is carefully dissected and freed from the internal deltoid fascia. The scapular spine is identified to visualize the raphé between the supraspinatus and infraspinatus. The infraspinatus is mobilized and repaired as much as possible.

If we think that the tear might be reparable by gaining added excursion from a posterior interval slide, or if it is clearly not reparable but the remaining rim of rotator cuff obscures clear visualization of the superior glenoid, we perform a posterior interval slide. If the additional excursion that is achieved by the posterior slide is adequate for a complete repair, we proceed with the repair. However, if the tear is not reparable even after the posterior interval slide, we have found that the exposure and preparation of the superior glenoid is greatly improved after the posterior slide. After fixation of the dermal graft, we typically perform a partial side-to-side repair of the supraspinatus to the infraspinatus over the top of the graft.

The bone beds of the greater tuberosity and just medial to the superior glenoid labrum are prepared with a shaver and motorized burr. Two anchors (3.0-mm BioComposite SutureTak; Arthrex) are placed in the superior glenoid neck at about the 10 o’clock and 2 o’clock positions approximately 5 mm medial to the superior labrum. Note: the placement medial to the labrum is chosen because this is the normal origin of the superior capsule and because of the angle of approach, these percutaneous portals are often more medial than typical portals for placing anchors during SLAP (superior labral anterior to posterior) repair. Next, 2 threaded anchors (4.75-mm BioComposite SwiveLock; Arthrex) preloaded with suture tape are placed in the greater tuberosity along the articular margin (Figure 1). However, if a biceps tenodesis with an interference screw is placed at the top of the bicipital groove, this anchor preloaded with suture tape can also serve as the anteromedial anchor in the greater tuberosity footprint. The distances between all 4 anchors are carefully measured with a calibrated probe (Figures 2A-2D).

We use a 3.0-mm acellular dermal allograft (ArthroFlex; Arthrex) to reconstruct the superior capsule. The positions of the 4 anchors are carefully marked on the dermal allograft. We routinely add an additional 5 mm of tissue to the medial, anterior, and posterior margins to decrease the risk of suture cut out. An additional 10 mm of tissue is added laterally to cover the greater tuberosity. The final contoured graft is typically trapezoidal in shape.

The sutures from the 4 anchors are then sequentially retrieved through the lateral cannula. The sutures from the greater tuberosity anchors are passed through their respective holes in the graft. However, the suture limbs from each of the glenoid anchors are individually passed 2 mm anterior and 2 mm posterior to their respective marks on the graft with an antegrade suture passer (Figure 3). It is important to have an assistant apply tension to each of the sutures after they are passed through the graft to decrease the chance of crossing and tangling the sutures.

The eyelets of the medial anchors are utilized as pulleys to deliver the dermal allograft into the shoulder. One suture limb from each of the glenoid anchors is tied to the other over a switching stick (Figure 4A). The 2 remaining (untied) suture limbs are then pulled, which introduces the graft to the orifice of the cannula (Figure 4B). A tissue grasper is then used to fold the dermal allograft along its long axis and introduce the graft into the joint (Figure 4C). Once the medial portion of the graft is positioned onto the superior glenoid the 2 remaining (untied) suture limbs are tied to each other as a static knot in the subacromial space (Figure 4D).

The redundancy in the suture tapes can be removed by sequentially sliding a retriever down each suture and tensioning the suture as the nose of the instrument pushes the dermal graft down to the tuberosity bone bed. The suture tapes are crisscrossed and secured laterally with 2 additional knotless threaded anchors (Figure 5). One may also place cinch stitches at the anterolateral and posterolateral corners of the graft that are incorporated into the lateral anchors. These sutures can be useful for pulling the graft back out of the subacromial space in the event of any suture tangles, and can be used for controlling the lateral aspect of the graft during lateral anchor placement.

At this point in the procedure, additional glenoid anchors can be placed both anterior and posterior to the superior glenoid anchors if additional glenoid fixation is desired. Finally, 2 to 3 side-to-side sutures are placed posteriorly attaching the anterior aspect of the infraspinatus to the posterior aspect of the dermal allograft (Figures 6A-6C). If rotator interval tissue (comma tissue) is present, anterior side-to-side sutures may be placed. However, we do not recommend placing anterior side-to-side sutures directly from the dermal allograft to the subscapularis as this may deform the graft, over- constrain the shoulder, and restrict motion.

Discussion

Reconstruction of the superior capsule has been shown to restore the normal restraint to superior translation of the humeral head and reestablish a stable fulcrum at the glenohumeral joint.⁵ It should be mentioned that we do not perform the SCR in patients with advanced glenohumeral arthritis. The short-term results of this novel procedure have been encouraging, including our own series of patients, in which most patients have had a significant reduction in pain, improvement in function, and very few complications (P. J. Denard, MD, S. S. Burkhart, MD, P. C. Brady, MD, J. Tokish, MD, C. R. Adams, MD, unpublished data, May 2016).

The early success of this procedure suggests that a robust superior capsule is necessary, in addition to functional muscle-tendon units, to restore the stable fulcrum and force couples that are necessary for normal shoulder function. Perhaps we have not paid enough attention to the integrity of the superior capsule in the past. In cases of revision cuff repair, we pay special attention to the quality of the capsular layer deep to the cuff tendon. If the capsule is poor quality, we sometimes reconstruct the capsule with a dermal allograft (SCR) and then do a rotator cuff repair (partial or complete) over the top of the SCR to maintain the normal anatomic deep to superficial layering of the capsule and rotator cuff.

We are very conservative with our postoperative rehabilitation program after a SCR. We know that the rate of stiffness with a conservative program after an arthroscopic rotator cuff repair, even in the revision setting, is very low.⁶ Furthermore, both basic science on healing of soft tissue to bone and radiographic analysis of healing after postoperative rotator cuff repairs support a slow rehabilitation program.^7,8 A canine model specifically evaluating acellular dermal allografts in the shoulder suggests that these grafts undergo significant remodeling and become weaker before they get stronger.⁹ We would rather err on the side of healing of the SCR with potentially a slight increase in the rate of shoulder stiffness than to regain early motion at the expense of graft failure. Therefore, we have the patient wear a sling with no shoulder motion for 6 weeks. Passive motion is started at 6 weeks postoperative and strengthening is delayed until 12 to 16 weeks postoperative.

Rotator cuff tears are very common, and 250,000 to 500,000 rotator cuff repairs are performed in the United States each year.^1,2 In most cases, a complete repair of even large or massive tears can be achieved. However, a subset of patients exist in whom the glenohumeral joint has minimal degenerative changes and the rotator cuff tendon is either irreparable or very poor quality and unlikely to heal (ie, failed previous cuff repair). Some authors have advocated for reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) in these patients despite the lack of glenohumeral arthritis. However, due to the permanent destruction of the glenohumeral articular surfaces, complication rates, and concerns about implant longevity with RSA, we believe the superior capsular reconstruction (SCR) is a viable alternative in patients in whom joint preservation is appropriate based on age limitations and/or activity requirements.³

The SCR was first described by Mihata and colleagues4 as a means to reconstruct the superior capsule in shoulders with large, irreparable posterosuperior rotator cuff tears. Originally described using a fascia lata autograft, our technique has been adapted to incorporate a dermal allograft, which limits donor site morbidity and operative time. In most cases, the dermal allograft is fixed to the normal anatomic attachments of the superior glenoid just medial to the superior labrum, laterally to the greater tuberosity, and posteriorly with side-to-side sutures to the remaining rotator cuff. If there is a robust band of “comma” tissue anteriorly, we fix the anterior margin of the dermal graft to this with side-to-side sutures. The comma tissue represents the medial sling of the biceps tendon and connects the upper subscapularis tendon to the anterior supraspinatus. In most cases, this tissue is intact after repair of the subscapularis tendon.

Technique

The patient is positioned in either the lateral decubitus or beach chair position. The arm is positioned in 20° to 30° of abduction and 20° to 30° of forward flexion. A diagnostic arthroscopy is performed through a posterior glenohumeral viewing portal. The subscapularis is visualized and repaired if torn. A biceps tenodesis is performed in most cases, as there is often a tear of the subscapularis, tear or instability of the biceps tendon, and/or a compromised attachment of the biceps root.

Attention is turned to the subacromial space. Posterior viewing and lateral working portals are established. A 10-mm flexible cannula (PassPort; Arthrex) is placed in the lateral portal to aid with suture management and graft passage. A limited subacromial decompression is performed that preserves the coracoacromial arch. The rotator cuff is carefully dissected and freed from the internal deltoid fascia. The scapular spine is identified to visualize the raphé between the supraspinatus and infraspinatus. The infraspinatus is mobilized and repaired as much as possible.

If we think that the tear might be reparable by gaining added excursion from a posterior interval slide, or if it is clearly not reparable but the remaining rim of rotator cuff obscures clear visualization of the superior glenoid, we perform a posterior interval slide. If the additional excursion that is achieved by the posterior slide is adequate for a complete repair, we proceed with the repair. However, if the tear is not reparable even after the posterior interval slide, we have found that the exposure and preparation of the superior glenoid is greatly improved after the posterior slide. After fixation of the dermal graft, we typically perform a partial side-to-side repair of the supraspinatus to the infraspinatus over the top of the graft.

The bone beds of the greater tuberosity and just medial to the superior glenoid labrum are prepared with a shaver and motorized burr. Two anchors (3.0-mm BioComposite SutureTak; Arthrex) are placed in the superior glenoid neck at about the 10 o’clock and 2 o’clock positions approximately 5 mm medial to the superior labrum. Note: the placement medial to the labrum is chosen because this is the normal origin of the superior capsule and because of the angle of approach, these percutaneous portals are often more medial than typical portals for placing anchors during SLAP (superior labral anterior to posterior) repair. Next, 2 threaded anchors (4.75-mm BioComposite SwiveLock; Arthrex) preloaded with suture tape are placed in the greater tuberosity along the articular margin (Figure 1). However, if a biceps tenodesis with an interference screw is placed at the top of the bicipital groove, this anchor preloaded with suture tape can also serve as the anteromedial anchor in the greater tuberosity footprint. The distances between all 4 anchors are carefully measured with a calibrated probe (Figures 2A-2D).

We use a 3.0-mm acellular dermal allograft (ArthroFlex; Arthrex) to reconstruct the superior capsule. The positions of the 4 anchors are carefully marked on the dermal allograft. We routinely add an additional 5 mm of tissue to the medial, anterior, and posterior margins to decrease the risk of suture cut out. An additional 10 mm of tissue is added laterally to cover the greater tuberosity. The final contoured graft is typically trapezoidal in shape.

The sutures from the 4 anchors are then sequentially retrieved through the lateral cannula. The sutures from the greater tuberosity anchors are passed through their respective holes in the graft. However, the suture limbs from each of the glenoid anchors are individually passed 2 mm anterior and 2 mm posterior to their respective marks on the graft with an antegrade suture passer (Figure 3). It is important to have an assistant apply tension to each of the sutures after they are passed through the graft to decrease the chance of crossing and tangling the sutures.

The eyelets of the medial anchors are utilized as pulleys to deliver the dermal allograft into the shoulder. One suture limb from each of the glenoid anchors is tied to the other over a switching stick (Figure 4A). The 2 remaining (untied) suture limbs are then pulled, which introduces the graft to the orifice of the cannula (Figure 4B). A tissue grasper is then used to fold the dermal allograft along its long axis and introduce the graft into the joint (Figure 4C). Once the medial portion of the graft is positioned onto the superior glenoid the 2 remaining (untied) suture limbs are tied to each other as a static knot in the subacromial space (Figure 4D).

The redundancy in the suture tapes can be removed by sequentially sliding a retriever down each suture and tensioning the suture as the nose of the instrument pushes the dermal graft down to the tuberosity bone bed. The suture tapes are crisscrossed and secured laterally with 2 additional knotless threaded anchors (Figure 5). One may also place cinch stitches at the anterolateral and posterolateral corners of the graft that are incorporated into the lateral anchors. These sutures can be useful for pulling the graft back out of the subacromial space in the event of any suture tangles, and can be used for controlling the lateral aspect of the graft during lateral anchor placement.

At this point in the procedure, additional glenoid anchors can be placed both anterior and posterior to the superior glenoid anchors if additional glenoid fixation is desired. Finally, 2 to 3 side-to-side sutures are placed posteriorly attaching the anterior aspect of the infraspinatus to the posterior aspect of the dermal allograft (Figures 6A-6C). If rotator interval tissue (comma tissue) is present, anterior side-to-side sutures may be placed. However, we do not recommend placing anterior side-to-side sutures directly from the dermal allograft to the subscapularis as this may deform the graft, over- constrain the shoulder, and restrict motion.

Discussion

Reconstruction of the superior capsule has been shown to restore the normal restraint to superior translation of the humeral head and reestablish a stable fulcrum at the glenohumeral joint.⁵ It should be mentioned that we do not perform the SCR in patients with advanced glenohumeral arthritis. The short-term results of this novel procedure have been encouraging, including our own series of patients, in which most patients have had a significant reduction in pain, improvement in function, and very few complications (P. J. Denard, MD, S. S. Burkhart, MD, P. C. Brady, MD, J. Tokish, MD, C. R. Adams, MD, unpublished data, May 2016).

The early success of this procedure suggests that a robust superior capsule is necessary, in addition to functional muscle-tendon units, to restore the stable fulcrum and force couples that are necessary for normal shoulder function. Perhaps we have not paid enough attention to the integrity of the superior capsule in the past. In cases of revision cuff repair, we pay special attention to the quality of the capsular layer deep to the cuff tendon. If the capsule is poor quality, we sometimes reconstruct the capsule with a dermal allograft (SCR) and then do a rotator cuff repair (partial or complete) over the top of the SCR to maintain the normal anatomic deep to superficial layering of the capsule and rotator cuff.

We are very conservative with our postoperative rehabilitation program after a SCR. We know that the rate of stiffness with a conservative program after an arthroscopic rotator cuff repair, even in the revision setting, is very low.⁶ Furthermore, both basic science on healing of soft tissue to bone and radiographic analysis of healing after postoperative rotator cuff repairs support a slow rehabilitation program.^7,8 A canine model specifically evaluating acellular dermal allografts in the shoulder suggests that these grafts undergo significant remodeling and become weaker before they get stronger.⁹ We would rather err on the side of healing of the SCR with potentially a slight increase in the rate of shoulder stiffness than to regain early motion at the expense of graft failure. Therefore, we have the patient wear a sling with no shoulder motion for 6 weeks. Passive motion is started at 6 weeks postoperative and strengthening is delayed until 12 to 16 weeks postoperative.

Rotator cuff tears are very common, and 250,000 to 500,000 rotator cuff repairs are performed in the United States each year.^1,2 In most cases, a complete repair of even large or massive tears can be achieved. However, a subset of patients exist in whom the glenohumeral joint has minimal degenerative changes and the rotator cuff tendon is either irreparable or very poor quality and unlikely to heal (ie, failed previous cuff repair). Some authors have advocated for reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) in these patients despite the lack of glenohumeral arthritis. However, due to the permanent destruction of the glenohumeral articular surfaces, complication rates, and concerns about implant longevity with RSA, we believe the superior capsular reconstruction (SCR) is a viable alternative in patients in whom joint preservation is appropriate based on age limitations and/or activity requirements.³

The SCR was first described by Mihata and colleagues4 as a means to reconstruct the superior capsule in shoulders with large, irreparable posterosuperior rotator cuff tears. Originally described using a fascia lata autograft, our technique has been adapted to incorporate a dermal allograft, which limits donor site morbidity and operative time. In most cases, the dermal allograft is fixed to the normal anatomic attachments of the superior glenoid just medial to the superior labrum, laterally to the greater tuberosity, and posteriorly with side-to-side sutures to the remaining rotator cuff. If there is a robust band of “comma” tissue anteriorly, we fix the anterior margin of the dermal graft to this with side-to-side sutures. The comma tissue represents the medial sling of the biceps tendon and connects the upper subscapularis tendon to the anterior supraspinatus. In most cases, this tissue is intact after repair of the subscapularis tendon.

Technique

The patient is positioned in either the lateral decubitus or beach chair position. The arm is positioned in 20° to 30° of abduction and 20° to 30° of forward flexion. A diagnostic arthroscopy is performed through a posterior glenohumeral viewing portal. The subscapularis is visualized and repaired if torn. A biceps tenodesis is performed in most cases, as there is often a tear of the subscapularis, tear or instability of the biceps tendon, and/or a compromised attachment of the biceps root.

Attention is turned to the subacromial space. Posterior viewing and lateral working portals are established. A 10-mm flexible cannula (PassPort; Arthrex) is placed in the lateral portal to aid with suture management and graft passage. A limited subacromial decompression is performed that preserves the coracoacromial arch. The rotator cuff is carefully dissected and freed from the internal deltoid fascia. The scapular spine is identified to visualize the raphé between the supraspinatus and infraspinatus. The infraspinatus is mobilized and repaired as much as possible.

If we think that the tear might be reparable by gaining added excursion from a posterior interval slide, or if it is clearly not reparable but the remaining rim of rotator cuff obscures clear visualization of the superior glenoid, we perform a posterior interval slide. If the additional excursion that is achieved by the posterior slide is adequate for a complete repair, we proceed with the repair. However, if the tear is not reparable even after the posterior interval slide, we have found that the exposure and preparation of the superior glenoid is greatly improved after the posterior slide. After fixation of the dermal graft, we typically perform a partial side-to-side repair of the supraspinatus to the infraspinatus over the top of the graft.

The bone beds of the greater tuberosity and just medial to the superior glenoid labrum are prepared with a shaver and motorized burr. Two anchors (3.0-mm BioComposite SutureTak; Arthrex) are placed in the superior glenoid neck at about the 10 o’clock and 2 o’clock positions approximately 5 mm medial to the superior labrum. Note: the placement medial to the labrum is chosen because this is the normal origin of the superior capsule and because of the angle of approach, these percutaneous portals are often more medial than typical portals for placing anchors during SLAP (superior labral anterior to posterior) repair. Next, 2 threaded anchors (4.75-mm BioComposite SwiveLock; Arthrex) preloaded with suture tape are placed in the greater tuberosity along the articular margin (Figure 1). However, if a biceps tenodesis with an interference screw is placed at the top of the bicipital groove, this anchor preloaded with suture tape can also serve as the anteromedial anchor in the greater tuberosity footprint. The distances between all 4 anchors are carefully measured with a calibrated probe (Figures 2A-2D).

We use a 3.0-mm acellular dermal allograft (ArthroFlex; Arthrex) to reconstruct the superior capsule. The positions of the 4 anchors are carefully marked on the dermal allograft. We routinely add an additional 5 mm of tissue to the medial, anterior, and posterior margins to decrease the risk of suture cut out. An additional 10 mm of tissue is added laterally to cover the greater tuberosity. The final contoured graft is typically trapezoidal in shape.

The sutures from the 4 anchors are then sequentially retrieved through the lateral cannula. The sutures from the greater tuberosity anchors are passed through their respective holes in the graft. However, the suture limbs from each of the glenoid anchors are individually passed 2 mm anterior and 2 mm posterior to their respective marks on the graft with an antegrade suture passer (Figure 3). It is important to have an assistant apply tension to each of the sutures after they are passed through the graft to decrease the chance of crossing and tangling the sutures.

The eyelets of the medial anchors are utilized as pulleys to deliver the dermal allograft into the shoulder. One suture limb from each of the glenoid anchors is tied to the other over a switching stick (Figure 4A). The 2 remaining (untied) suture limbs are then pulled, which introduces the graft to the orifice of the cannula (Figure 4B). A tissue grasper is then used to fold the dermal allograft along its long axis and introduce the graft into the joint (Figure 4C). Once the medial portion of the graft is positioned onto the superior glenoid the 2 remaining (untied) suture limbs are tied to each other as a static knot in the subacromial space (Figure 4D).

The redundancy in the suture tapes can be removed by sequentially sliding a retriever down each suture and tensioning the suture as the nose of the instrument pushes the dermal graft down to the tuberosity bone bed. The suture tapes are crisscrossed and secured laterally with 2 additional knotless threaded anchors (Figure 5). One may also place cinch stitches at the anterolateral and posterolateral corners of the graft that are incorporated into the lateral anchors. These sutures can be useful for pulling the graft back out of the subacromial space in the event of any suture tangles, and can be used for controlling the lateral aspect of the graft during lateral anchor placement.

At this point in the procedure, additional glenoid anchors can be placed both anterior and posterior to the superior glenoid anchors if additional glenoid fixation is desired. Finally, 2 to 3 side-to-side sutures are placed posteriorly attaching the anterior aspect of the infraspinatus to the posterior aspect of the dermal allograft (Figures 6A-6C). If rotator interval tissue (comma tissue) is present, anterior side-to-side sutures may be placed. However, we do not recommend placing anterior side-to-side sutures directly from the dermal allograft to the subscapularis as this may deform the graft, over- constrain the shoulder, and restrict motion.

Discussion

Reconstruction of the superior capsule has been shown to restore the normal restraint to superior translation of the humeral head and reestablish a stable fulcrum at the glenohumeral joint.⁵ It should be mentioned that we do not perform the SCR in patients with advanced glenohumeral arthritis. The short-term results of this novel procedure have been encouraging, including our own series of patients, in which most patients have had a significant reduction in pain, improvement in function, and very few complications (P. J. Denard, MD, S. S. Burkhart, MD, P. C. Brady, MD, J. Tokish, MD, C. R. Adams, MD, unpublished data, May 2016).

The early success of this procedure suggests that a robust superior capsule is necessary, in addition to functional muscle-tendon units, to restore the stable fulcrum and force couples that are necessary for normal shoulder function. Perhaps we have not paid enough attention to the integrity of the superior capsule in the past. In cases of revision cuff repair, we pay special attention to the quality of the capsular layer deep to the cuff tendon. If the capsule is poor quality, we sometimes reconstruct the capsule with a dermal allograft (SCR) and then do a rotator cuff repair (partial or complete) over the top of the SCR to maintain the normal anatomic deep to superficial layering of the capsule and rotator cuff.

We are very conservative with our postoperative rehabilitation program after a SCR. We know that the rate of stiffness with a conservative program after an arthroscopic rotator cuff repair, even in the revision setting, is very low.⁶ Furthermore, both basic science on healing of soft tissue to bone and radiographic analysis of healing after postoperative rotator cuff repairs support a slow rehabilitation program.^7,8 A canine model specifically evaluating acellular dermal allografts in the shoulder suggests that these grafts undergo significant remodeling and become weaker before they get stronger.⁹ We would rather err on the side of healing of the SCR with potentially a slight increase in the rate of shoulder stiffness than to regain early motion at the expense of graft failure. Therefore, we have the patient wear a sling with no shoulder motion for 6 weeks. Passive motion is started at 6 weeks postoperative and strengthening is delayed until 12 to 16 weeks postoperative.

For overhead athletes, elbow ulnar collateral ligament (UCL) insufficiency is a potential career-ending injury. Baseball players with UCL insufficiency typically complain of medial-sided elbow pain that affects their ability to throw. Loss of velocity, loss of control, difficulty warming up, and pain while throwing are all symptoms of UCL injury.

Classically, nonoperative treatment of UCL injuries involves activity modification, use of anti-inflammatory medication, and a structured physical therapy program. Asymptomatic players can return to throwing after a structured interval throwing program. Rettig and colleagues¹ found a 42% rate of success in conservatively treating UCL injuries in throwing athletes. UCL reconstruction is reserved for players with complete tears of the UCL or with partial tears after failed conservative treatment. Several techniques have been used to reconstruct the ligament, but successful outcomes depend on a long rehabilitation process. According to most published series, 85% to 90% of athletes who had UCL reconstruction returned to their previous level of play, but it took, on average, 9 to 12 months.^2,3 This prolonged recovery period is one reason that some older professional baseball players, as well as casual high school and college players, elect to forgo surgery.

Over the past few years, platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has garnered attention as a bridge between conservative treatment and surgery. PRP refers to a sample of autologous blood that contains a platelet concentration higher than baseline levels. This sample often has a 3 to 5 times increase in growth factor concentration.^4-6 Initial studies focused on its ability to successfully treat lateral epicondylitis.^7-9 More recent clinical work has shown that PRP can potentially enhance healing after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction,^10-14 rotator cuff repair,^15-17 and subacromial decompression.^11,18-23 If PRP could be used to successfully treat UCL insufficiency that is refractory to conservative treatment, then year-long recovery periods could be avoided. This could potentially prolong certain athletes’ careers or, at the very least, allow them to return to play much sooner. In the present case series, we hypothesized that PRP injections could be used to successfully treat partial UCL tears in high-level throwing athletes, obviating the need for surgery and its associated prolonged recovery period.

Materials and Methods

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained for this retrospective study of 44 baseball players treated with PRP injections for partial-thickness UCL tears.

Patients provided written informed consent. They were diagnosed with UCL insufficiency by physical examination, and findings were confirmed by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). After diagnosis, all throwers underwent a trial of conservative treatment that included rest, activity modification, use of anti-inflammatory medication, and physical therapy followed by an attempt to return to throwing using an interval throwing program.

Study inclusion criteria were physical examinations and MRI results consistent with UCL insufficiency, and failure of the conservative treatment plan described.

Patients were injected using the Autologous Conditioned Plasma system (Arthrex). PRP solutions were prepared according to manufacturer guidelines. After the elbow was prepared sterilely, the UCL was injected at the location of the tear. Typically, 3 mL of PRP was injected into the elbow. Sixteen patients had 1 injection, 6 had 2, and 22 had 3. Repeat injections were considered for recalcitrant pain after 3 weeks.

After injection, patients used acetaminophen and ice for pain control. Anti-inflammatory medications were avoided for a minimum of 2 weeks after injection. Typical postinjection therapy protocol consisted of rest followed by progressive stretching and strengthening for about 4 to 6 weeks before the start of an interval throwing program. Although there is no well-defined postinjection recovery protocol, as a general rule rest was prescribed for the first 2 weeks, followed by a progressive stretching and strengthening program for the next month. Patients who were asymptomatic subjectively and clinically—negative moving valgus stress test, negative milking maneuver, no pain with valgus stress—were started on an interval throwing program.

Final follow-up involved a physical examination. Results were classified according to a modified version of the Conway Scale^12,24-26: excellent (return to preinjury level of competition or performance), good (return to play at a lower level of competition or performance or, specifically for baseball players, ability to throw in daily batting practice), fair (able to play recreationally), and poor (unable to return to previous sport at any level).

By final follow-up, all patients had completed their postoperative rehabilitation protocol, and all had at least tried to return to their previous activities. No patients were lost to follow-up.

Results

Of the 44 baseball players, 6 were professional, 14 were in college, and 24 were in high school. There were 36 pitchers and 8 position players. Mean age was 17.3 years (range, 16-28 years). All patients were available for follow-up after injection (mean, 11 months). Fifteen of the 44 players had an excellent outcome (34%), 17 had a good outcome, 2 had a fair outcome, and 10 had a poor outcome. After injection, 4 (67%) of the 6 professional baseball players returned to professional play. Five (36%) of the 14 college players had an excellent outcome, and 4 (17%) of the 24 high school players had an excellent outcome. Of the 8 position players, 4 had an excellent outcome, 3 had a good outcome, and 1 had a poor outcome.

Before treatment, all patients had medial-sided elbow pain over the UCL inhibiting their ability to throw. Mean duration of symptoms before injection was 8.8 months (range, 1-36 months). There was no correlation between symptom duration and any outcome measure. On MRI, 29 patients showed partial tears: 22 proximally based and 7 distally based. The other 15 patients had diffuse signal without partial tear. All 7 patients with distally based partial tears and 3 of the patients with proximally based partial tears had a poor outcome. Overall, there were 6 excellent, 7 good, and 2 fair outcomes in the partial-tear group. In the patients with diffuse signal without partial tear, there were 9 excellent and 10 good outcomes.

Mean time from injection to return to throwing was 5 weeks, and mean time to return to competition was 12 weeks (range, 5-24 weeks). The 1 player who returned at 5 weeks was a professional relief pitcher whose team was in the playoffs. He has now pitched for an additional 2 baseball seasons without elbow difficulty.

There were no injection-related complications.

Discussion

To our knowledge, this is the first report documenting successful PRP treatment of UCL insufficiency. In this study, 73% of players who had failed a course of conservative treatment had good to excellent outcomes with PRP injection.

Data on successful nonoperative treatment of UCL injuries are limited. Rettig and colleagues¹ treated 31 throwing athletes’ UCL injuries with a supervised rehabilitation program. Treatment included rest, use of anti-inflammatory medication, progressive strengthening, and an interval throwing program. Only 41% of the athletes returned to their previous level of play, and it took, on average, 24.5 weeks. There was no significant difference in age or in duration or acuity of symptoms between those who returned to play and those whose conservative treatment failed.

Surgical reconstruction of UCL injuries has been very successful, with upward of 90% of athletes returning to previous level of play.^3,27The procedure, however, is not without associated complications, including retear of the ligament, stiffness, ulnar nerve injury, and fracture.^27-29 In addition, even when successful, the procedure requires that athletes take 9 to 12 months to recover before returning to competition at their previous level.

Savoie and colleagues,³⁰ in their recent study on UCL repairs, highlighted an important fact that is often overlooked when reviewing the literature on UCL tears. Most of the literature on these injuries focuses on college and professional baseball players in whom ligament damage is often extensive, precluding repair. In contrast to prior reports, Savoie and colleagues³⁰ found excellent results in 93% of their young athletes who underwent UCL repair. It is possible that their results can be attributed to the fact that many of their athletes had tears isolated to one area of the ligament, as opposed to generalized ligament incompetence. Our improved results vis-à-vis other reports on conservative management may be attributable to the same phenomenon.

PRP has garnered much attention in the literature and media because of its potential to enhance healing of tendons and ligaments; in some cases, it can obviate the need for surgery. After failure of other nonoperative measures in 15 patients with elbow epicondylitis, Mishra and Pavelko⁸ treated each patient with a single PRP injection. They prepared the PRP using the GPS III system (Biomet). At final follow-up, 93% improvement was seen. Clearly, their experiment had design flaws: It was nonblinded, and 3 of the 5 patients in the control group treated with bupivacaine injection withdrew from the experiment. Despite its shortcomings, their study became the impetus for several other studies.

A larger, double-blinded, randomized controlled trial comparing PRP and cortisone injections for lateral epicondylitis in 100 patients is under way, and preliminary results have been published.⁹ A minimum of 6 months after injection, patients who received PRP showed more improvement in visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnaire scores. In another large, double-blinded, randomized controlled trial, patients with chronic lateral epicondylitis had significant improvements in VAS pain scores and DASH scores relative to patients injected with corticosteroids with a 2-year follow-up.³¹ Similarly, Thanasas and colleagues³² found significantly reduced VAS pain scores in patients injected with PRP versus autologous whole blood. Another study demonstrated improved tendon morphology using ultrasound imaging 6 months after PRP injection.³³

Contrary to these positive results, Krogh and colleagues³⁴ found that a single injection of PRP or glucocorticoid was not significantly superior to a saline injection for reducing pain and disability over a 3-month period in patients with lateral epicondylitis. Their study, however, had major flaws. Its original design called for a 12-month follow-up, but there was massive dropout in all 3 treatment arms, necessitating reporting of only 3-month data. In addition, 60% of the patients in the glucocorticoid group were not naïve to this treatment, so definitive conclusions about the efficacy of glucocorticoids could not be made.

In the present study, we successfully treated partial ligament tears with PRP injections. Sixty-seven percent of our baseball players returned to play at a mean of 4 months, much earlier than the 9 to 12 months typically required after ligament reconstruction. Many athletes, such as high school baseball players or aging veteran professional baseball players, do not have the luxury of 12 months for recovery. Therefore, this select group of patients clearly has a limited window of opportunity to return to play. In fact, these patients might be ideal candidates for PRP injections for UCL injuries. Return-to-play rates, however, differed significantly among professional players and nonprofessional players. The difference may be attributable to professional players’ conditioning, quality of physical therapy, extrinsic motivation, and other intangible factors. Four (67%) of our 6 professional baseball players returned to professional play after injection, whereas only 36% of college players and 17% of high school players had excellent outcomes.

Limitations

The present study had several weaknesses, several of which are inherent to PRP studies conducted so far. It was not a prospective, randomized controlled trial. It is important to note that PRP treatment in diseased tissue may have some drawbacks, as its success depends on the ability of healing tissue to use concentrated growth factors and cytokines to proliferate.³⁵ Thus, a chronically injured ligament with depleted active cells may have a diminished response to PRP. Another limitation of this study is that we evaluated outcomes based on return to play using the Conway Scale, which is well reported but not validated. Despite the potential weaknesses of this outcome scale, it has become the benchmark for measuring the success of outcomes of UCL reconstruction. Furthermore, we did not measure patients’ satisfaction with the treatment. Players who could not return to their preinjury level of play may have considered the treatment a failure regardless of their ability to continue throwing. Last, MRI was not repeated to document ligament healing. We did not routinely perform a second MRI because we thought it would not affect treatment. Several series have found a high incidence of abnormal signal in baseball players’ UCLs. In this group of patients, the most important outcome is return to previous level of competition.

This study raised several questions. Is one PRP brand better than another? Should more than 1 injection be given? What is the ideal postinjection protocol? Clearly, larger, prospective, randomized controlled studies are needed to truly elucidate the potential role of PRP in the treatment algorithm for UCL injury. Nevertheless, in certain cases in which traditional conservative measures have failed and patients do not have the luxury of rehabilitating for 9 to 12 months after surgery, PRP may be a viable treatment option.

Conclusion

In this study, use of PRP in the treatment of UCL insufficiency produced outcomes much better than earlier reported outcomes of conservative treatment of these injuries. PRP injections may be particularly beneficial in young athletes who have sustained acute damage to an isolated part of the ligament and in athletes unwilling or unable to undergo the extended rehabilitation required after surgical reconstruction of the ligament.

For overhead athletes, elbow ulnar collateral ligament (UCL) insufficiency is a potential career-ending injury. Baseball players with UCL insufficiency typically complain of medial-sided elbow pain that affects their ability to throw. Loss of velocity, loss of control, difficulty warming up, and pain while throwing are all symptoms of UCL injury.

Classically, nonoperative treatment of UCL injuries involves activity modification, use of anti-inflammatory medication, and a structured physical therapy program. Asymptomatic players can return to throwing after a structured interval throwing program. Rettig and colleagues¹ found a 42% rate of success in conservatively treating UCL injuries in throwing athletes. UCL reconstruction is reserved for players with complete tears of the UCL or with partial tears after failed conservative treatment. Several techniques have been used to reconstruct the ligament, but successful outcomes depend on a long rehabilitation process. According to most published series, 85% to 90% of athletes who had UCL reconstruction returned to their previous level of play, but it took, on average, 9 to 12 months.^2,3 This prolonged recovery period is one reason that some older professional baseball players, as well as casual high school and college players, elect to forgo surgery.

Over the past few years, platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has garnered attention as a bridge between conservative treatment and surgery. PRP refers to a sample of autologous blood that contains a platelet concentration higher than baseline levels. This sample often has a 3 to 5 times increase in growth factor concentration.^4-6 Initial studies focused on its ability to successfully treat lateral epicondylitis.^7-9 More recent clinical work has shown that PRP can potentially enhance healing after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction,^10-14 rotator cuff repair,^15-17 and subacromial decompression.^11,18-23 If PRP could be used to successfully treat UCL insufficiency that is refractory to conservative treatment, then year-long recovery periods could be avoided. This could potentially prolong certain athletes’ careers or, at the very least, allow them to return to play much sooner. In the present case series, we hypothesized that PRP injections could be used to successfully treat partial UCL tears in high-level throwing athletes, obviating the need for surgery and its associated prolonged recovery period.

Materials and Methods

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained for this retrospective study of 44 baseball players treated with PRP injections for partial-thickness UCL tears.

Patients provided written informed consent. They were diagnosed with UCL insufficiency by physical examination, and findings were confirmed by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). After diagnosis, all throwers underwent a trial of conservative treatment that included rest, activity modification, use of anti-inflammatory medication, and physical therapy followed by an attempt to return to throwing using an interval throwing program.

Study inclusion criteria were physical examinations and MRI results consistent with UCL insufficiency, and failure of the conservative treatment plan described.

Patients were injected using the Autologous Conditioned Plasma system (Arthrex). PRP solutions were prepared according to manufacturer guidelines. After the elbow was prepared sterilely, the UCL was injected at the location of the tear. Typically, 3 mL of PRP was injected into the elbow. Sixteen patients had 1 injection, 6 had 2, and 22 had 3. Repeat injections were considered for recalcitrant pain after 3 weeks.

After injection, patients used acetaminophen and ice for pain control. Anti-inflammatory medications were avoided for a minimum of 2 weeks after injection. Typical postinjection therapy protocol consisted of rest followed by progressive stretching and strengthening for about 4 to 6 weeks before the start of an interval throwing program. Although there is no well-defined postinjection recovery protocol, as a general rule rest was prescribed for the first 2 weeks, followed by a progressive stretching and strengthening program for the next month. Patients who were asymptomatic subjectively and clinically—negative moving valgus stress test, negative milking maneuver, no pain with valgus stress—were started on an interval throwing program.

Final follow-up involved a physical examination. Results were classified according to a modified version of the Conway Scale^12,24-26: excellent (return to preinjury level of competition or performance), good (return to play at a lower level of competition or performance or, specifically for baseball players, ability to throw in daily batting practice), fair (able to play recreationally), and poor (unable to return to previous sport at any level).

By final follow-up, all patients had completed their postoperative rehabilitation protocol, and all had at least tried to return to their previous activities. No patients were lost to follow-up.

Results

Of the 44 baseball players, 6 were professional, 14 were in college, and 24 were in high school. There were 36 pitchers and 8 position players. Mean age was 17.3 years (range, 16-28 years). All patients were available for follow-up after injection (mean, 11 months). Fifteen of the 44 players had an excellent outcome (34%), 17 had a good outcome, 2 had a fair outcome, and 10 had a poor outcome. After injection, 4 (67%) of the 6 professional baseball players returned to professional play. Five (36%) of the 14 college players had an excellent outcome, and 4 (17%) of the 24 high school players had an excellent outcome. Of the 8 position players, 4 had an excellent outcome, 3 had a good outcome, and 1 had a poor outcome.

Before treatment, all patients had medial-sided elbow pain over the UCL inhibiting their ability to throw. Mean duration of symptoms before injection was 8.8 months (range, 1-36 months). There was no correlation between symptom duration and any outcome measure. On MRI, 29 patients showed partial tears: 22 proximally based and 7 distally based. The other 15 patients had diffuse signal without partial tear. All 7 patients with distally based partial tears and 3 of the patients with proximally based partial tears had a poor outcome. Overall, there were 6 excellent, 7 good, and 2 fair outcomes in the partial-tear group. In the patients with diffuse signal without partial tear, there were 9 excellent and 10 good outcomes.

Mean time from injection to return to throwing was 5 weeks, and mean time to return to competition was 12 weeks (range, 5-24 weeks). The 1 player who returned at 5 weeks was a professional relief pitcher whose team was in the playoffs. He has now pitched for an additional 2 baseball seasons without elbow difficulty.

There were no injection-related complications.

Discussion

To our knowledge, this is the first report documenting successful PRP treatment of UCL insufficiency. In this study, 73% of players who had failed a course of conservative treatment had good to excellent outcomes with PRP injection.

Data on successful nonoperative treatment of UCL injuries are limited. Rettig and colleagues¹ treated 31 throwing athletes’ UCL injuries with a supervised rehabilitation program. Treatment included rest, use of anti-inflammatory medication, progressive strengthening, and an interval throwing program. Only 41% of the athletes returned to their previous level of play, and it took, on average, 24.5 weeks. There was no significant difference in age or in duration or acuity of symptoms between those who returned to play and those whose conservative treatment failed.

Surgical reconstruction of UCL injuries has been very successful, with upward of 90% of athletes returning to previous level of play.^3,27The procedure, however, is not without associated complications, including retear of the ligament, stiffness, ulnar nerve injury, and fracture.^27-29 In addition, even when successful, the procedure requires that athletes take 9 to 12 months to recover before returning to competition at their previous level.

Savoie and colleagues,³⁰ in their recent study on UCL repairs, highlighted an important fact that is often overlooked when reviewing the literature on UCL tears. Most of the literature on these injuries focuses on college and professional baseball players in whom ligament damage is often extensive, precluding repair. In contrast to prior reports, Savoie and colleagues³⁰ found excellent results in 93% of their young athletes who underwent UCL repair. It is possible that their results can be attributed to the fact that many of their athletes had tears isolated to one area of the ligament, as opposed to generalized ligament incompetence. Our improved results vis-à-vis other reports on conservative management may be attributable to the same phenomenon.

PRP has garnered much attention in the literature and media because of its potential to enhance healing of tendons and ligaments; in some cases, it can obviate the need for surgery. After failure of other nonoperative measures in 15 patients with elbow epicondylitis, Mishra and Pavelko⁸ treated each patient with a single PRP injection. They prepared the PRP using the GPS III system (Biomet). At final follow-up, 93% improvement was seen. Clearly, their experiment had design flaws: It was nonblinded, and 3 of the 5 patients in the control group treated with bupivacaine injection withdrew from the experiment. Despite its shortcomings, their study became the impetus for several other studies.

A larger, double-blinded, randomized controlled trial comparing PRP and cortisone injections for lateral epicondylitis in 100 patients is under way, and preliminary results have been published.⁹ A minimum of 6 months after injection, patients who received PRP showed more improvement in visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnaire scores. In another large, double-blinded, randomized controlled trial, patients with chronic lateral epicondylitis had significant improvements in VAS pain scores and DASH scores relative to patients injected with corticosteroids with a 2-year follow-up.³¹ Similarly, Thanasas and colleagues³² found significantly reduced VAS pain scores in patients injected with PRP versus autologous whole blood. Another study demonstrated improved tendon morphology using ultrasound imaging 6 months after PRP injection.³³

Contrary to these positive results, Krogh and colleagues³⁴ found that a single injection of PRP or glucocorticoid was not significantly superior to a saline injection for reducing pain and disability over a 3-month period in patients with lateral epicondylitis. Their study, however, had major flaws. Its original design called for a 12-month follow-up, but there was massive dropout in all 3 treatment arms, necessitating reporting of only 3-month data. In addition, 60% of the patients in the glucocorticoid group were not naïve to this treatment, so definitive conclusions about the efficacy of glucocorticoids could not be made.

In the present study, we successfully treated partial ligament tears with PRP injections. Sixty-seven percent of our baseball players returned to play at a mean of 4 months, much earlier than the 9 to 12 months typically required after ligament reconstruction. Many athletes, such as high school baseball players or aging veteran professional baseball players, do not have the luxury of 12 months for recovery. Therefore, this select group of patients clearly has a limited window of opportunity to return to play. In fact, these patients might be ideal candidates for PRP injections for UCL injuries. Return-to-play rates, however, differed significantly among professional players and nonprofessional players. The difference may be attributable to professional players’ conditioning, quality of physical therapy, extrinsic motivation, and other intangible factors. Four (67%) of our 6 professional baseball players returned to professional play after injection, whereas only 36% of college players and 17% of high school players had excellent outcomes.

Limitations

The present study had several weaknesses, several of which are inherent to PRP studies conducted so far. It was not a prospective, randomized controlled trial. It is important to note that PRP treatment in diseased tissue may have some drawbacks, as its success depends on the ability of healing tissue to use concentrated growth factors and cytokines to proliferate.³⁵ Thus, a chronically injured ligament with depleted active cells may have a diminished response to PRP. Another limitation of this study is that we evaluated outcomes based on return to play using the Conway Scale, which is well reported but not validated. Despite the potential weaknesses of this outcome scale, it has become the benchmark for measuring the success of outcomes of UCL reconstruction. Furthermore, we did not measure patients’ satisfaction with the treatment. Players who could not return to their preinjury level of play may have considered the treatment a failure regardless of their ability to continue throwing. Last, MRI was not repeated to document ligament healing. We did not routinely perform a second MRI because we thought it would not affect treatment. Several series have found a high incidence of abnormal signal in baseball players’ UCLs. In this group of patients, the most important outcome is return to previous level of competition.

This study raised several questions. Is one PRP brand better than another? Should more than 1 injection be given? What is the ideal postinjection protocol? Clearly, larger, prospective, randomized controlled studies are needed to truly elucidate the potential role of PRP in the treatment algorithm for UCL injury. Nevertheless, in certain cases in which traditional conservative measures have failed and patients do not have the luxury of rehabilitating for 9 to 12 months after surgery, PRP may be a viable treatment option.

Conclusion

In this study, use of PRP in the treatment of UCL insufficiency produced outcomes much better than earlier reported outcomes of conservative treatment of these injuries. PRP injections may be particularly beneficial in young athletes who have sustained acute damage to an isolated part of the ligament and in athletes unwilling or unable to undergo the extended rehabilitation required after surgical reconstruction of the ligament.

For overhead athletes, elbow ulnar collateral ligament (UCL) insufficiency is a potential career-ending injury. Baseball players with UCL insufficiency typically complain of medial-sided elbow pain that affects their ability to throw. Loss of velocity, loss of control, difficulty warming up, and pain while throwing are all symptoms of UCL injury.

Classically, nonoperative treatment of UCL injuries involves activity modification, use of anti-inflammatory medication, and a structured physical therapy program. Asymptomatic players can return to throwing after a structured interval throwing program. Rettig and colleagues¹ found a 42% rate of success in conservatively treating UCL injuries in throwing athletes. UCL reconstruction is reserved for players with complete tears of the UCL or with partial tears after failed conservative treatment. Several techniques have been used to reconstruct the ligament, but successful outcomes depend on a long rehabilitation process. According to most published series, 85% to 90% of athletes who had UCL reconstruction returned to their previous level of play, but it took, on average, 9 to 12 months.^2,3 This prolonged recovery period is one reason that some older professional baseball players, as well as casual high school and college players, elect to forgo surgery.

Over the past few years, platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has garnered attention as a bridge between conservative treatment and surgery. PRP refers to a sample of autologous blood that contains a platelet concentration higher than baseline levels. This sample often has a 3 to 5 times increase in growth factor concentration.^4-6 Initial studies focused on its ability to successfully treat lateral epicondylitis.^7-9 More recent clinical work has shown that PRP can potentially enhance healing after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction,^10-14 rotator cuff repair,^15-17 and subacromial decompression.^11,18-23 If PRP could be used to successfully treat UCL insufficiency that is refractory to conservative treatment, then year-long recovery periods could be avoided. This could potentially prolong certain athletes’ careers or, at the very least, allow them to return to play much sooner. In the present case series, we hypothesized that PRP injections could be used to successfully treat partial UCL tears in high-level throwing athletes, obviating the need for surgery and its associated prolonged recovery period.

Materials and Methods

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained for this retrospective study of 44 baseball players treated with PRP injections for partial-thickness UCL tears.

Patients provided written informed consent. They were diagnosed with UCL insufficiency by physical examination, and findings were confirmed by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). After diagnosis, all throwers underwent a trial of conservative treatment that included rest, activity modification, use of anti-inflammatory medication, and physical therapy followed by an attempt to return to throwing using an interval throwing program.

Study inclusion criteria were physical examinations and MRI results consistent with UCL insufficiency, and failure of the conservative treatment plan described.

Patients were injected using the Autologous Conditioned Plasma system (Arthrex). PRP solutions were prepared according to manufacturer guidelines. After the elbow was prepared sterilely, the UCL was injected at the location of the tear. Typically, 3 mL of PRP was injected into the elbow. Sixteen patients had 1 injection, 6 had 2, and 22 had 3. Repeat injections were considered for recalcitrant pain after 3 weeks.

After injection, patients used acetaminophen and ice for pain control. Anti-inflammatory medications were avoided for a minimum of 2 weeks after injection. Typical postinjection therapy protocol consisted of rest followed by progressive stretching and strengthening for about 4 to 6 weeks before the start of an interval throwing program. Although there is no well-defined postinjection recovery protocol, as a general rule rest was prescribed for the first 2 weeks, followed by a progressive stretching and strengthening program for the next month. Patients who were asymptomatic subjectively and clinically—negative moving valgus stress test, negative milking maneuver, no pain with valgus stress—were started on an interval throwing program.

Final follow-up involved a physical examination. Results were classified according to a modified version of the Conway Scale^12,24-26: excellent (return to preinjury level of competition or performance), good (return to play at a lower level of competition or performance or, specifically for baseball players, ability to throw in daily batting practice), fair (able to play recreationally), and poor (unable to return to previous sport at any level).

By final follow-up, all patients had completed their postoperative rehabilitation protocol, and all had at least tried to return to their previous activities. No patients were lost to follow-up.

Results

Of the 44 baseball players, 6 were professional, 14 were in college, and 24 were in high school. There were 36 pitchers and 8 position players. Mean age was 17.3 years (range, 16-28 years). All patients were available for follow-up after injection (mean, 11 months). Fifteen of the 44 players had an excellent outcome (34%), 17 had a good outcome, 2 had a fair outcome, and 10 had a poor outcome. After injection, 4 (67%) of the 6 professional baseball players returned to professional play. Five (36%) of the 14 college players had an excellent outcome, and 4 (17%) of the 24 high school players had an excellent outcome. Of the 8 position players, 4 had an excellent outcome, 3 had a good outcome, and 1 had a poor outcome.

Before treatment, all patients had medial-sided elbow pain over the UCL inhibiting their ability to throw. Mean duration of symptoms before injection was 8.8 months (range, 1-36 months). There was no correlation between symptom duration and any outcome measure. On MRI, 29 patients showed partial tears: 22 proximally based and 7 distally based. The other 15 patients had diffuse signal without partial tear. All 7 patients with distally based partial tears and 3 of the patients with proximally based partial tears had a poor outcome. Overall, there were 6 excellent, 7 good, and 2 fair outcomes in the partial-tear group. In the patients with diffuse signal without partial tear, there were 9 excellent and 10 good outcomes.

Mean time from injection to return to throwing was 5 weeks, and mean time to return to competition was 12 weeks (range, 5-24 weeks). The 1 player who returned at 5 weeks was a professional relief pitcher whose team was in the playoffs. He has now pitched for an additional 2 baseball seasons without elbow difficulty.

There were no injection-related complications.

Discussion

To our knowledge, this is the first report documenting successful PRP treatment of UCL insufficiency. In this study, 73% of players who had failed a course of conservative treatment had good to excellent outcomes with PRP injection.

Data on successful nonoperative treatment of UCL injuries are limited. Rettig and colleagues¹ treated 31 throwing athletes’ UCL injuries with a supervised rehabilitation program. Treatment included rest, use of anti-inflammatory medication, progressive strengthening, and an interval throwing program. Only 41% of the athletes returned to their previous level of play, and it took, on average, 24.5 weeks. There was no significant difference in age or in duration or acuity of symptoms between those who returned to play and those whose conservative treatment failed.

Surgical reconstruction of UCL injuries has been very successful, with upward of 90% of athletes returning to previous level of play.^3,27The procedure, however, is not without associated complications, including retear of the ligament, stiffness, ulnar nerve injury, and fracture.^27-29 In addition, even when successful, the procedure requires that athletes take 9 to 12 months to recover before returning to competition at their previous level.

Savoie and colleagues,³⁰ in their recent study on UCL repairs, highlighted an important fact that is often overlooked when reviewing the literature on UCL tears. Most of the literature on these injuries focuses on college and professional baseball players in whom ligament damage is often extensive, precluding repair. In contrast to prior reports, Savoie and colleagues³⁰ found excellent results in 93% of their young athletes who underwent UCL repair. It is possible that their results can be attributed to the fact that many of their athletes had tears isolated to one area of the ligament, as opposed to generalized ligament incompetence. Our improved results vis-à-vis other reports on conservative management may be attributable to the same phenomenon.

PRP has garnered much attention in the literature and media because of its potential to enhance healing of tendons and ligaments; in some cases, it can obviate the need for surgery. After failure of other nonoperative measures in 15 patients with elbow epicondylitis, Mishra and Pavelko⁸ treated each patient with a single PRP injection. They prepared the PRP using the GPS III system (Biomet). At final follow-up, 93% improvement was seen. Clearly, their experiment had design flaws: It was nonblinded, and 3 of the 5 patients in the control group treated with bupivacaine injection withdrew from the experiment. Despite its shortcomings, their study became the impetus for several other studies.

A larger, double-blinded, randomized controlled trial comparing PRP and cortisone injections for lateral epicondylitis in 100 patients is under way, and preliminary results have been published.⁹ A minimum of 6 months after injection, patients who received PRP showed more improvement in visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnaire scores. In another large, double-blinded, randomized controlled trial, patients with chronic lateral epicondylitis had significant improvements in VAS pain scores and DASH scores relative to patients injected with corticosteroids with a 2-year follow-up.³¹ Similarly, Thanasas and colleagues³² found significantly reduced VAS pain scores in patients injected with PRP versus autologous whole blood. Another study demonstrated improved tendon morphology using ultrasound imaging 6 months after PRP injection.³³

Contrary to these positive results, Krogh and colleagues³⁴ found that a single injection of PRP or glucocorticoid was not significantly superior to a saline injection for reducing pain and disability over a 3-month period in patients with lateral epicondylitis. Their study, however, had major flaws. Its original design called for a 12-month follow-up, but there was massive dropout in all 3 treatment arms, necessitating reporting of only 3-month data. In addition, 60% of the patients in the glucocorticoid group were not naïve to this treatment, so definitive conclusions about the efficacy of glucocorticoids could not be made.

In the present study, we successfully treated partial ligament tears with PRP injections. Sixty-seven percent of our baseball players returned to play at a mean of 4 months, much earlier than the 9 to 12 months typically required after ligament reconstruction. Many athletes, such as high school baseball players or aging veteran professional baseball players, do not have the luxury of 12 months for recovery. Therefore, this select group of patients clearly has a limited window of opportunity to return to play. In fact, these patients might be ideal candidates for PRP injections for UCL injuries. Return-to-play rates, however, differed significantly among professional players and nonprofessional players. The difference may be attributable to professional players’ conditioning, quality of physical therapy, extrinsic motivation, and other intangible factors. Four (67%) of our 6 professional baseball players returned to professional play after injection, whereas only 36% of college players and 17% of high school players had excellent outcomes.

Limitations

The present study had several weaknesses, several of which are inherent to PRP studies conducted so far. It was not a prospective, randomized controlled trial. It is important to note that PRP treatment in diseased tissue may have some drawbacks, as its success depends on the ability of healing tissue to use concentrated growth factors and cytokines to proliferate.³⁵ Thus, a chronically injured ligament with depleted active cells may have a diminished response to PRP. Another limitation of this study is that we evaluated outcomes based on return to play using the Conway Scale, which is well reported but not validated. Despite the potential weaknesses of this outcome scale, it has become the benchmark for measuring the success of outcomes of UCL reconstruction. Furthermore, we did not measure patients’ satisfaction with the treatment. Players who could not return to their preinjury level of play may have considered the treatment a failure regardless of their ability to continue throwing. Last, MRI was not repeated to document ligament healing. We did not routinely perform a second MRI because we thought it would not affect treatment. Several series have found a high incidence of abnormal signal in baseball players’ UCLs. In this group of patients, the most important outcome is return to previous level of competition.

This study raised several questions. Is one PRP brand better than another? Should more than 1 injection be given? What is the ideal postinjection protocol? Clearly, larger, prospective, randomized controlled studies are needed to truly elucidate the potential role of PRP in the treatment algorithm for UCL injury. Nevertheless, in certain cases in which traditional conservative measures have failed and patients do not have the luxury of rehabilitating for 9 to 12 months after surgery, PRP may be a viable treatment option.

Conclusion

In this study, use of PRP in the treatment of UCL insufficiency produced outcomes much better than earlier reported outcomes of conservative treatment of these injuries. PRP injections may be particularly beneficial in young athletes who have sustained acute damage to an isolated part of the ligament and in athletes unwilling or unable to undergo the extended rehabilitation required after surgical reconstruction of the ligament.

Rotator cuff repairs (RCRs) can be challenging due to poor tendon quality and the inability of tendon to heal to bone. Smoking, age over 63 years, fatty infiltration, and massive cuff tears are all factors implicated in increased failure rates.^1-3 Tears >3 cm have a structural failure rate ranging from 11% to 95% in the literature.^1-5 Massive tears (tears >5 cm or involving 2 or more tendons) are even more complex and have failure rates of 20% to 90%.^5,6 The weakest link in the RCR construct is the suture-tendon interface, and suture pullout through the tendon is thought to be the most common method of failure.⁶ The purpose of this review is to examine whether literature supports the use of acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) in rotator cuff surgery.

The high rate of structural failures after RCR has led surgeons to seek means to augment repairs and new means of reconstruction for irreparable tears. Freeze dried allograft tendons have been used historically with mixed results, including reports of complete graft failures and foreign body reaction.^7-10 Porcine intestinal submucosal membrane “patches” gained popularity due to off-the- shelf availability of the graft. However, these were found to have poor outcomes with early graft rejection and intense inflammatory reaction.^11,12 Recently, ADMs have gained significant interest due to favorable biomechanical properties and clinical outcomes.^13-19

An ADM is an allograft composed of mostly type I collagen that is processed to remove donor cells while preserving the extracellular matrix. There are several commercially available ADMs with different methods of processing and sterilization, as well as handling characteristics.^20,21 In vivo studies have demonstrated that removing the cellular components allows infiltration of native cellular agents, such as fibroblasts, vascular tissue, and tenocytes, while causing minimal host inflammatory reaction.^21-23 In addition, superior suture pullout strength has been demonstrated by multiple benchtop and preclinical studies.^23,24 Therefore, ADMs play a dual role of strengthening the repair while allowing infiltration of host cells and growth factors to potentially promote healing at the repair site.

Emerging Evidence

Multiple biomechanical studies have evaluated ADMs in RC models.^24-28 Barber and colleagues²⁴ demonstrated that ADM had significantly higher loads to failure (229 N) than porcine skin (128 N), bovine skin (76 N), and porcine small intestine submucosa (32 N) (P < .001). In another study, Barber and colleagues²⁵ subsequently demonstrated, in a cadaver RC tear model, an increase in mean failure strength in augmented repairs with ADM (325 N) compared to cadaveric controls (273 N) (P = .047).

A subsequent study by Barber and Aziz-Jacobo²⁶ compared ADMs to a control model of allograft RC. The ADMs had significantly higher tensile modulus (P < .001) and higher suture retention measure by a single-pull destructive test of a simple vertical stitch (P < .05) than the RC allograft. The ultimate load to failure of the ADM model was higher than the RC allograft control (523±154 N vs 208±115 N); however, this difference did not reach statistical significance.²⁶ Beitzel and colleagues²⁷ evaluated ADM augmentation in a cadaver RC model and found a statistically significant increase in load to failure in ADM augmented repairs vs nonaugmented controls, (575.8 N vs 348.9 N, P = .025). Ely and colleagues²⁸ also demonstrated that repairs augmented with ADM had a higher load to failure (643 N vs 551 N) and less gap formation (2.2 mm vs 2.8 mm) compared to controls, although this difference was not statistically significant.

These biomechanical studies have been translated to clinical findings. A level II, prospective, randomized controlled study by Barber and colleagues²⁹ evaluated 42 patients with >3 cm, 2-tendon RCTs repaired arthroscopically.Twenty-two patients were randomized to single-row arthroscopic repair, and 20 patients to single-row arthroscopic repair augmented by ADM by an onlay technique (Figure 1) as described by Labbé.³⁰ At average follow-up of 24 months, 85% of the augmented repairs were intact on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) at follow-up, compared to 40% in the control group (P < .05). Agrawal³¹ retrospectively reviewed 14 patients with either RCTs >3 cm or recurrent RCT (may be <3 cm) that were arthroscopically repaired with a double-row technique with ADM augmentation. Postoperative MRI obtained at average of 16.8 months revealed 85.7% of repairs to be intact, with 14.3% having recurrent tears of <1 cm. Rotini and colleagues³² evaluated a smaller subset of 5 patients with large/massive primary cuff tears, arthroscopically repaired with double-row technique and ADM augmentation. Follow-up MRI at an average of 1 year demonstrated 3 intact repairs, 1 partial recurrence, and 1 complete recurrence. These clinical studies demonstrate that RCRs augmented with ADM have a much higher rate of structural integrity on postoperative imaging compared to what has been previously reported in the literature.^1-6

Although an “off-label” indication, the use of ADM in massive RC tears has been described with good clinical results.^14,17,19,33 The ADM is used to bridge the gap by suturing it to the edge of the retracted tendon and anchoring it to the tuberosity (Figures 2A-2E). Improvement in pain, function, and active range of motion can be achieved. Burkhead and colleagues¹⁴ obtained postoperative MRIs at average follow-up of 1.2 years and found only 3 of 11 repairs with evidence of re-tear, all noted to be smaller than preoperative tears. Gupta and colleagues¹⁷ obtained postoperative ultrasounds in 24 patients at average 3 years and showed 76% of tears to be fully intact, with the remaining 24% having only a partial tear, and 0% with full re-tears. Venouziou and colleagues¹⁹ evaluated 14 patients with minimum 18-month follow-up and Kokkalis and colleagues³³ evaluated 21 patients with a 29-month follow-up; both described successful clinical outcomes but did not provide postoperative imaging evaluation. Multiple studies have adapted this technique to a fully arthroscopic method and have had similarly positive results clinically and with MRI.^{13,16,18,34,35} Bond and colleagues¹³ reported 16 cases with massive irreparable tears repaired arthroscopically with ADM to span the tendon gap. At an average follow-up of 26.8 months, 75% had good or excellent clinical results, and at an average of 1 year postoperatively 13 of 16 cases had an intact repair on gadolinium enhanced MRI.¹³ These studies suggest that ADM can be used for bridging massive irreparable RC tears with good clinical and radiographic outcomes.

Superior capsule reconstruction is a biomechanically proven concept that has been described in previous studies.^36,37 In the original technique, autologous tensor fascia lata (TFL) is anchored from the glenoid margin to the greater tuberosity footprint to restore the superior stability of the glenohumeral joint, without altering the native glenohumeral contact forces.³⁸ This concept has gained popularity in the United States, but with the use of an ADM instead of harvesting TFL (Figures 3A, 3B). However, there are no published biomechanical or clinical studies with the use of ADM in superior capsular reconstruction.

Conclusion

The use of ADM is an emerging solution for augmenting primary RCRs and the treatment of irreparable RC tears. The biomechanical and clinical studies summarized support the use of ADM in RC surgery. Further randomized studies are needed to add to the growing evidence on the use of ADMs.

Rotator cuff repairs (RCRs) can be challenging due to poor tendon quality and the inability of tendon to heal to bone. Smoking, age over 63 years, fatty infiltration, and massive cuff tears are all factors implicated in increased failure rates.^1-3 Tears >3 cm have a structural failure rate ranging from 11% to 95% in the literature.^1-5 Massive tears (tears >5 cm or involving 2 or more tendons) are even more complex and have failure rates of 20% to 90%.^5,6 The weakest link in the RCR construct is the suture-tendon interface, and suture pullout through the tendon is thought to be the most common method of failure.⁶ The purpose of this review is to examine whether literature supports the use of acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) in rotator cuff surgery.

The high rate of structural failures after RCR has led surgeons to seek means to augment repairs and new means of reconstruction for irreparable tears. Freeze dried allograft tendons have been used historically with mixed results, including reports of complete graft failures and foreign body reaction.^7-10 Porcine intestinal submucosal membrane “patches” gained popularity due to off-the- shelf availability of the graft. However, these were found to have poor outcomes with early graft rejection and intense inflammatory reaction.^11,12 Recently, ADMs have gained significant interest due to favorable biomechanical properties and clinical outcomes.^13-19

An ADM is an allograft composed of mostly type I collagen that is processed to remove donor cells while preserving the extracellular matrix. There are several commercially available ADMs with different methods of processing and sterilization, as well as handling characteristics.^20,21 In vivo studies have demonstrated that removing the cellular components allows infiltration of native cellular agents, such as fibroblasts, vascular tissue, and tenocytes, while causing minimal host inflammatory reaction.^21-23 In addition, superior suture pullout strength has been demonstrated by multiple benchtop and preclinical studies.^23,24 Therefore, ADMs play a dual role of strengthening the repair while allowing infiltration of host cells and growth factors to potentially promote healing at the repair site.

Emerging Evidence

Multiple biomechanical studies have evaluated ADMs in RC models.^24-28 Barber and colleagues²⁴ demonstrated that ADM had significantly higher loads to failure (229 N) than porcine skin (128 N), bovine skin (76 N), and porcine small intestine submucosa (32 N) (P < .001). In another study, Barber and colleagues²⁵ subsequently demonstrated, in a cadaver RC tear model, an increase in mean failure strength in augmented repairs with ADM (325 N) compared to cadaveric controls (273 N) (P = .047).

A subsequent study by Barber and Aziz-Jacobo²⁶ compared ADMs to a control model of allograft RC. The ADMs had significantly higher tensile modulus (P < .001) and higher suture retention measure by a single-pull destructive test of a simple vertical stitch (P < .05) than the RC allograft. The ultimate load to failure of the ADM model was higher than the RC allograft control (523±154 N vs 208±115 N); however, this difference did not reach statistical significance.²⁶ Beitzel and colleagues²⁷ evaluated ADM augmentation in a cadaver RC model and found a statistically significant increase in load to failure in ADM augmented repairs vs nonaugmented controls, (575.8 N vs 348.9 N, P = .025). Ely and colleagues²⁸ also demonstrated that repairs augmented with ADM had a higher load to failure (643 N vs 551 N) and less gap formation (2.2 mm vs 2.8 mm) compared to controls, although this difference was not statistically significant.

These biomechanical studies have been translated to clinical findings. A level II, prospective, randomized controlled study by Barber and colleagues²⁹ evaluated 42 patients with >3 cm, 2-tendon RCTs repaired arthroscopically.Twenty-two patients were randomized to single-row arthroscopic repair, and 20 patients to single-row arthroscopic repair augmented by ADM by an onlay technique (Figure 1) as described by Labbé.³⁰ At average follow-up of 24 months, 85% of the augmented repairs were intact on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) at follow-up, compared to 40% in the control group (P < .05). Agrawal³¹ retrospectively reviewed 14 patients with either RCTs >3 cm or recurrent RCT (may be <3 cm) that were arthroscopically repaired with a double-row technique with ADM augmentation. Postoperative MRI obtained at average of 16.8 months revealed 85.7% of repairs to be intact, with 14.3% having recurrent tears of <1 cm. Rotini and colleagues³² evaluated a smaller subset of 5 patients with large/massive primary cuff tears, arthroscopically repaired with double-row technique and ADM augmentation. Follow-up MRI at an average of 1 year demonstrated 3 intact repairs, 1 partial recurrence, and 1 complete recurrence. These clinical studies demonstrate that RCRs augmented with ADM have a much higher rate of structural integrity on postoperative imaging compared to what has been previously reported in the literature.^1-6

Although an “off-label” indication, the use of ADM in massive RC tears has been described with good clinical results.^14,17,19,33 The ADM is used to bridge the gap by suturing it to the edge of the retracted tendon and anchoring it to the tuberosity (Figures 2A-2E). Improvement in pain, function, and active range of motion can be achieved. Burkhead and colleagues¹⁴ obtained postoperative MRIs at average follow-up of 1.2 years and found only 3 of 11 repairs with evidence of re-tear, all noted to be smaller than preoperative tears. Gupta and colleagues¹⁷ obtained postoperative ultrasounds in 24 patients at average 3 years and showed 76% of tears to be fully intact, with the remaining 24% having only a partial tear, and 0% with full re-tears. Venouziou and colleagues¹⁹ evaluated 14 patients with minimum 18-month follow-up and Kokkalis and colleagues³³ evaluated 21 patients with a 29-month follow-up; both described successful clinical outcomes but did not provide postoperative imaging evaluation. Multiple studies have adapted this technique to a fully arthroscopic method and have had similarly positive results clinically and with MRI.^{13,16,18,34,35} Bond and colleagues¹³ reported 16 cases with massive irreparable tears repaired arthroscopically with ADM to span the tendon gap. At an average follow-up of 26.8 months, 75% had good or excellent clinical results, and at an average of 1 year postoperatively 13 of 16 cases had an intact repair on gadolinium enhanced MRI.¹³ These studies suggest that ADM can be used for bridging massive irreparable RC tears with good clinical and radiographic outcomes.

Superior capsule reconstruction is a biomechanically proven concept that has been described in previous studies.^36,37 In the original technique, autologous tensor fascia lata (TFL) is anchored from the glenoid margin to the greater tuberosity footprint to restore the superior stability of the glenohumeral joint, without altering the native glenohumeral contact forces.³⁸ This concept has gained popularity in the United States, but with the use of an ADM instead of harvesting TFL (Figures 3A, 3B). However, there are no published biomechanical or clinical studies with the use of ADM in superior capsular reconstruction.

Conclusion

The use of ADM is an emerging solution for augmenting primary RCRs and the treatment of irreparable RC tears. The biomechanical and clinical studies summarized support the use of ADM in RC surgery. Further randomized studies are needed to add to the growing evidence on the use of ADMs.

Rotator cuff repairs (RCRs) can be challenging due to poor tendon quality and the inability of tendon to heal to bone. Smoking, age over 63 years, fatty infiltration, and massive cuff tears are all factors implicated in increased failure rates.^1-3 Tears >3 cm have a structural failure rate ranging from 11% to 95% in the literature.^1-5 Massive tears (tears >5 cm or involving 2 or more tendons) are even more complex and have failure rates of 20% to 90%.^5,6 The weakest link in the RCR construct is the suture-tendon interface, and suture pullout through the tendon is thought to be the most common method of failure.⁶ The purpose of this review is to examine whether literature supports the use of acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) in rotator cuff surgery.

The high rate of structural failures after RCR has led surgeons to seek means to augment repairs and new means of reconstruction for irreparable tears. Freeze dried allograft tendons have been used historically with mixed results, including reports of complete graft failures and foreign body reaction.^7-10 Porcine intestinal submucosal membrane “patches” gained popularity due to off-the- shelf availability of the graft. However, these were found to have poor outcomes with early graft rejection and intense inflammatory reaction.^11,12 Recently, ADMs have gained significant interest due to favorable biomechanical properties and clinical outcomes.^13-19

An ADM is an allograft composed of mostly type I collagen that is processed to remove donor cells while preserving the extracellular matrix. There are several commercially available ADMs with different methods of processing and sterilization, as well as handling characteristics.^20,21 In vivo studies have demonstrated that removing the cellular components allows infiltration of native cellular agents, such as fibroblasts, vascular tissue, and tenocytes, while causing minimal host inflammatory reaction.^21-23 In addition, superior suture pullout strength has been demonstrated by multiple benchtop and preclinical studies.^23,24 Therefore, ADMs play a dual role of strengthening the repair while allowing infiltration of host cells and growth factors to potentially promote healing at the repair site.

Emerging Evidence

Multiple biomechanical studies have evaluated ADMs in RC models.^24-28 Barber and colleagues²⁴ demonstrated that ADM had significantly higher loads to failure (229 N) than porcine skin (128 N), bovine skin (76 N), and porcine small intestine submucosa (32 N) (P < .001). In another study, Barber and colleagues²⁵ subsequently demonstrated, in a cadaver RC tear model, an increase in mean failure strength in augmented repairs with ADM (325 N) compared to cadaveric controls (273 N) (P = .047).

A subsequent study by Barber and Aziz-Jacobo²⁶ compared ADMs to a control model of allograft RC. The ADMs had significantly higher tensile modulus (P < .001) and higher suture retention measure by a single-pull destructive test of a simple vertical stitch (P < .05) than the RC allograft. The ultimate load to failure of the ADM model was higher than the RC allograft control (523±154 N vs 208±115 N); however, this difference did not reach statistical significance.²⁶ Beitzel and colleagues²⁷ evaluated ADM augmentation in a cadaver RC model and found a statistically significant increase in load to failure in ADM augmented repairs vs nonaugmented controls, (575.8 N vs 348.9 N, P = .025). Ely and colleagues²⁸ also demonstrated that repairs augmented with ADM had a higher load to failure (643 N vs 551 N) and less gap formation (2.2 mm vs 2.8 mm) compared to controls, although this difference was not statistically significant.

These biomechanical studies have been translated to clinical findings. A level II, prospective, randomized controlled study by Barber and colleagues²⁹ evaluated 42 patients with >3 cm, 2-tendon RCTs repaired arthroscopically.Twenty-two patients were randomized to single-row arthroscopic repair, and 20 patients to single-row arthroscopic repair augmented by ADM by an onlay technique (Figure 1) as described by Labbé.³⁰ At average follow-up of 24 months, 85% of the augmented repairs were intact on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) at follow-up, compared to 40% in the control group (P < .05). Agrawal³¹ retrospectively reviewed 14 patients with either RCTs >3 cm or recurrent RCT (may be <3 cm) that were arthroscopically repaired with a double-row technique with ADM augmentation. Postoperative MRI obtained at average of 16.8 months revealed 85.7% of repairs to be intact, with 14.3% having recurrent tears of <1 cm. Rotini and colleagues³² evaluated a smaller subset of 5 patients with large/massive primary cuff tears, arthroscopically repaired with double-row technique and ADM augmentation. Follow-up MRI at an average of 1 year demonstrated 3 intact repairs, 1 partial recurrence, and 1 complete recurrence. These clinical studies demonstrate that RCRs augmented with ADM have a much higher rate of structural integrity on postoperative imaging compared to what has been previously reported in the literature.^1-6

Although an “off-label” indication, the use of ADM in massive RC tears has been described with good clinical results.^14,17,19,33 The ADM is used to bridge the gap by suturing it to the edge of the retracted tendon and anchoring it to the tuberosity (Figures 2A-2E). Improvement in pain, function, and active range of motion can be achieved. Burkhead and colleagues¹⁴ obtained postoperative MRIs at average follow-up of 1.2 years and found only 3 of 11 repairs with evidence of re-tear, all noted to be smaller than preoperative tears. Gupta and colleagues¹⁷ obtained postoperative ultrasounds in 24 patients at average 3 years and showed 76% of tears to be fully intact, with the remaining 24% having only a partial tear, and 0% with full re-tears. Venouziou and colleagues¹⁹ evaluated 14 patients with minimum 18-month follow-up and Kokkalis and colleagues³³ evaluated 21 patients with a 29-month follow-up; both described successful clinical outcomes but did not provide postoperative imaging evaluation. Multiple studies have adapted this technique to a fully arthroscopic method and have had similarly positive results clinically and with MRI.^{13,16,18,34,35} Bond and colleagues¹³ reported 16 cases with massive irreparable tears repaired arthroscopically with ADM to span the tendon gap. At an average follow-up of 26.8 months, 75% had good or excellent clinical results, and at an average of 1 year postoperatively 13 of 16 cases had an intact repair on gadolinium enhanced MRI.¹³ These studies suggest that ADM can be used for bridging massive irreparable RC tears with good clinical and radiographic outcomes.

Superior capsule reconstruction is a biomechanically proven concept that has been described in previous studies.^36,37 In the original technique, autologous tensor fascia lata (TFL) is anchored from the glenoid margin to the greater tuberosity footprint to restore the superior stability of the glenohumeral joint, without altering the native glenohumeral contact forces.³⁸ This concept has gained popularity in the United States, but with the use of an ADM instead of harvesting TFL (Figures 3A, 3B). However, there are no published biomechanical or clinical studies with the use of ADM in superior capsular reconstruction.

Conclusion

The use of ADM is an emerging solution for augmenting primary RCRs and the treatment of irreparable RC tears. The biomechanical and clinical studies summarized support the use of ADM in RC surgery. Further randomized studies are needed to add to the growing evidence on the use of ADMs.