3.8 Review

Postoperative deep shoulder infections following rotator cuff repair

Journal

WORLD JOURNAL OF ORTHOPEDICS
Volume 8, Issue 8, Pages 612-618

Publisher

BAISHIDENG PUBLISHING GROUP INC
DOI: 10.5312/wjo.v8.i8.612

Keywords

Rotator cuff repair; Deep shoulder infection; Shoulder surgery; Postoperative complication

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Rotator cuff repair (RCR) is one of the most commonly performed surgical procedures in orthopaedic surgery. The reported incidence of deep soft-tissue infections after RCR ranges between 0.3% and 1.9%. Deep shoulder infection after RCR appears uncommon, but the actual incidence may be higher as many cases may go unreported. Clinical presentation may include increasing shoulder pain and stiffness, high temperature, local erythema, swelling, warmth, and fibrinous exudate. Generalized fatigue and signs of sepsis may be present in severe cases. Varying clinical presentation coupled with a low index of suspicion may result in delayed diagnosis. Laboratory findings include high erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein level, and, rarely, abnormal peripheral blood leucocyte count. Aspiration of glenohumeral joint synovial fluid with analysis of cell count, gram staining and culture should be performed in all patients suspected with deep shoulder infection after RCR. The most commonly isolated pathogens are Propionibacterium acnes, Staphylococcus epidermidis, and Staphylococcus aureus. Management of a deep soft-tissue infection of the shoulder after RCR involves surgical debridement with lavage and long-term intravenous antibiotic treatment based on the pathogen identified. Although deep shoulder infection after RCR is usually successfully treated, complications of this condition can be devastating. Prolonged course of intravenous antibiotic treatment, extensive soft-tissue destruction and adhesions may result in substantially diminished functional outcomes.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available