Heterotopic ossification (HO) represents all types of extraskeletal ossification in the body. It occurs in various areas, including the skin, subcutaneous tissue, muscle, and joints. Surgical excision is recommended for symptomatic HO. Postoperative radiotherapy, oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and topical sealants, such as bone wax, have been recommended as preventive measures. As HO is rare in occurrence, these recommendations are based on personal experiences, and there is a lack of information on individualized treatments depending on its location.

A 62-year-old male was admitted for symptomatic HO along a laparotomy scar. Surgical excision was performed for an 11 cm-sized ossification originating from the xiphoid process, and bone wax was applied to the excisional margin. However, the surgical wound failed to heal. After several weeks of saline-soaked gauze dressing, delayed wound closure was performed. The patient was finally discharged eight weeks after the excision. Because HO can occur in various areas of the body, a treatment strategy that may be effective for some may not be for others. Bone wax has been used as a topical sealant over excisional margins in the shoulder, elbow, and temporomandibular joints. However, in our case, its application on an abdominal surgical wound delayed its primary healing intention. The valuable lesson was that, when choosing a treatment method for HO based on available research data, its location must be considered.

Complete excision should be the priority treatment option for symptomatic HO along the laparotomy scar. Bone wax application is not recommended.

Heterotopic ossification (HO) is the formation of bone in soft tissue resultant from inflammatory processes. Lesion formation after arthroscopic procedures is an uncommon but challenging complication. Optimal prophylaxis and management strategies have not been clearly defined.

To present a scoping review of the pathophysiology, risk factors, diagnostic modalities, prophylaxis recommendations, and current treatment practices concerning HO after arthroscopic management of orthopaedic injuries.

Scoping review; Level of evidence, 4.

A scoping review via a PubMed search was performed according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines. The search strategy was based on the terms "heterotopic ossification" AND "arthroscopy." The clinical outcomes review included studies on the arthroscopic management of orthopaedic injuries in which the primary subject matter or a secondary outcome was the development of HO. An analysis of the pathophysiology, diagnostic modalities, and management options was reported.

A total of 43 studies (33,065 patients) reported on HO after hip arthroscopy, while 21 (83 patients) collectively reported on HO after arthroscopic procedures to the shoulder, elbow, knee, or ankle; however, management techniques were not standardized. Identified risk factors for HO included male sex and mixed impingement pathology, while intraoperative capsular management was not suggested as a contributing factor. Diagnosis of ossification foci was performed using radiography and computed tomography. The rate of HO after hip arthroscopy procedures approached 46% without prophylaxis, and administration of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) decreased occurrence rates to 4% but carries associated risks. External beam radiation has not been exclusively studied for use after arthroscopic procedures.

HO is a known complication after arthroscopic management of orthopaedic injuries. NSAID prophylaxis has been demonstrated to be effective after hip arthroscopy procedures. Patients with persistent symptoms and mature lesions may be indicated for surgical excision, although variability is present in patient-reported outcome scores postoperatively.

The formation of heterotopic ossification around the shoulder is a rare but potentially debilitating condition. It is found most commonly around the hip and is usually associated with an inciting event such as trauma, burn, previous surgery, or traumatic brain/spinal cord injury. The formation of shoulder heterotopic ossification following arthroscopic surgery is very uncommon, with few data pertaining to it in the current literature. Formation of heterotopic ossification in the shoulder after arthroscopic surgery typically occurs around the acromioclavicular joint and in the subacromial space. This location may lead to chronic pain and decreased mobility. The purpose of this article is to describe an arthroscopic technique for excision of heterotopic ossification.

Excision of the distal clavicle (DCE) is a commonly carried out surgical procedure used in the management of acromioclavicular joint pathology. Although successful outcomes after both open and arthroscopic distal clavicle excision occur in a high percentage of patients, treatment failures have been reported, creating a difficult clinical scenario for the treating orthopedic surgeon. The most common mode of failure after DCE is persistent pain and potential etiologies include under-resection, over-resection leading to joint instability, postoperative stiffness, heterotopic ossification, untreated concomitant shoulder pathology, and postoperative infection. Less common causes of failure include distal clavicle fracture, reossification or fusion across the acromioclavicular joint, suprascapular neuropathy, and psychiatric illness. Persistent symptoms and disability after distal clavicle excision require a careful assessment of these potential causes of treatment failure and the formulation of a treatment plan, which may include conservative care, revision surgery, or coracoclavicular ligament reconstruction. Although careful patient selection, preoperative planning, proper surgical technique, and appropriate rehabilitation during the index procedure can minimize the likelihood of poor outcome, this paper reviews the work-up and management of cases of failed distal clavicle excision.

The purpose was to compare open and arthroscopic acromioclavicular joint (ACJ) resection.

We retrospectively reviewed 103 patients (105 shoulders) who underwent ACJ resection between 2000 and 2005. There were 56 women and 47 men with a mean age of 48 years. The mean duration of follow-up was 51 months (range, 15 to 91 months). Arthroscopic ACJ resection by use of a direct approach was performed in 81 shoulders (group A), and open ACJ resection was performed in 24 shoulders (group B). Results were graded according to pain relief both subjectively and objectively with cross-body adduction testing and direct palpation of the ACJ, subjective shoulder value, Constant score, and improved function.

The Constant scores increased from 50 (range, 34 to 65) to 89 (range, 39 to 100) in group A (P < .0001) and from 46 (range, 22 to 63) to 87 (range, 43 to 100) in group B (P < .0001). There was no statistical difference in the postoperative normalized Constant score between group A and group B (P = .47). Pain with cross-body adduction testing and palpation of the ACJ improved in 76 shoulders (94%) in group A and 22 shoulders (92%) in group B. No patients had signs or symptoms of ACJ anteroposterior instability. Revision ACJ resection was performed in 5 patients (5 shoulders [6.2%]) in group A and 1 shoulder (4.2%) in group B (P = .37). The radiographs of the patients who underwent revision showed that 3 patients (3.7%) from group A had regrowth of the distal clavicle; in addition, 2 patients (2.5%) from group A and 1 patient (4.3%) from group B had incomplete distal clavicle excision.

This study did not show a significant difference in the outcome between arthroscopic and open ACJ resection. Incomplete excision and regrowth of the distal clavicle are the most common causes of revision. Although only the arthroscopic group showed a small percentage of patients (3.7%) with regrowth of the distal clavicle, the number is too small to assume that this complication is the result of the arthroscopic technique only.

Level IV, therapeutic case series.