scholarly journals Prospective evaluation of glenoid bone loss after first-time and recurrent anterior glenohumeral instability events

2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (6) ◽  
pp. e197
Author(s):  
Jonathan F. Dickens ◽  
Sean E. Slaven ◽  
Kenneth L. Cameron ◽  
Adam M. Pickett ◽  
Matthew Posner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bone Loss ◽  
Glenoid Bone Loss ◽  
Prospective Evaluation ◽  
Glenohumeral Instability ◽  
Anterior Glenohumeral Instability ◽  
First Time

scholarly journals Prospective Evaluation of Glenoid Bone Loss After First-time and Recurrent Anterior Glenohumeral Instability Events

2019 ◽  
Vol 47 (5) ◽  
pp. 1082-1089 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan F. Dickens ◽  
Sean E. Slaven ◽  
Kenneth L. Cameron ◽  
Adam M. Pickett ◽  
Matthew Posner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cohort Study ◽  
Bone Loss ◽  
Shoulder Instability ◽  
Glenoid Bone Loss ◽  
Anterior Instability ◽  
Glenohumeral Instability ◽  
Recurrent Instability ◽  
History Of ◽  
Anterior Glenohumeral Instability ◽  
First Time

Background: Determining the amount of glenoid bone loss in patients after anterior glenohumeral instability events is critical to guiding appropriate treatment. One of the challenges in treating the shoulder instability of young athletes is the absence of clear data showing the effect of each event. Purpose: To prospectively determine the amount of bone loss associated with a single instability event in the setting of first-time and recurrent instability. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: The authors conducted a prospective cohort study of 714 athletes surveilled for 4 years. Baseline assessment included a subjective history of shoulder instability. Bilateral noncontrast shoulder magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was obtained for all participants with and without a history of previous shoulder instability. The cohort was prospectively followed during the study period, and those who sustained an anterior glenohumeral instability event were identified. Postinjury MRI with contrast was obtained and compared with the screening MRI. Glenoid width was measured for each patient’s pre- and postinjury MRI. The projected total glenoid bone loss was calculated and compared for patients with a history of shoulder instability. Results: Of the 714 athletes (1428 shoulders) who were prospectively followed during the 4-year period, 22 athletes (23 shoulders) sustained a first-time anterior instability event (5 dislocations, 18 subluxations), and 6 athletes (6 shoulders) with a history of instability sustained a recurrent anterior instability event (1 dislocation, 5 subluxations). On average, there was statistically significant glenoid bone loss (1.84 ± 1.47 mm) after a single instability event ( P < .001), equivalent to 6.8% (95% CI, 4.46%-9.04%; range, 0.71%-17.6%) of the glenoid width. After a first-time instability event, 12 shoulders (52%) demonstrated glenoid bone loss ≥5% and 4 shoulders, ≥13.5%; no shoulders had ≥20% glenoid bone loss. Preexisting glenoid bone loss among patients with a history of instability was 10.2% (95% CI, 1.96%-18.35%; range, 0.6%-21.0%). This bone loss increased to 22.8% (95% CI, 20.53%-25.15%; range, 21.2%-26.0%) after additional instability ( P = .0117). All 6 shoulders with recurrent instability had ≥20% glenoid bone loss. Conclusion: Glenoid bone loss of 6.8% was observed after a first-time anterior instability event. In the setting of recurrent instability, the total calculated glenoid bone loss was 22.8%, with a high prevalence of bony Bankart lesions (5 of 6). The findings of this study support early stabilization of young active patients after a first-time anterior glenohumeral instability event.

scholarly journals Prospective Evaluation of Glenoid Bone Loss After First-Time and Recurrent Anterior Glenohumeral Instability Events

2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (7_suppl4) ◽  
pp. 2325967118S0009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan F. Dickens ◽  
Sean E. Slaven ◽  
Kenneth L. Cameron ◽  
Adam M. Pickett ◽  
Matthew A. Posner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bone Loss ◽  
Shoulder Instability ◽  
Glenoid Bone Loss ◽  
Anterior Instability ◽  
Glenohumeral Instability ◽  
Post Injury ◽  
Recurrent Instability ◽  
History Of ◽  
Anterior Glenohumeral Instability ◽  
First Time

Objectives: Determining the amount of glenoid bone loss in patients following anterior glenohumeral instability events is critical to guiding appropriate treatment. One of the challenges in managing shoulder instability in young athletes is the absence of clear data showing the impact of each event. The purpose of this study was to prospectively determine the amount of bone loss associated with a single instability event, in the setting of both first-time and recurrent instability. Methods: We conducted a prospective cohort study of 714 athletes followed for four years. Baseline assessment included a subjective history of shoulder instability. Bilateral shoulder MRIs were obtained in all participants with and without a history of previous shoulder instability. The cohort was prospectively followed during the study period and those who sustained an anterior glenohumeral instability event were identified. A post-injury MRI was obtained and compared to the screening MRI. Glenoid width was measured for each patient’s pre- and post-injury MRI. The projected total glenoid bone loss was calculated and compared for patients with a prior history of shoulder instability. Results: Of the 714 athletes that were prospectively followed during the four-year period, 23 shoulders in 22 subjects sustained a first-time anterior instability event (5 dislocations, 18 subluxations), and six subjects with a previous history of instability sustained a recurrent anterior instability event (1 dislocation, 5 subluxations). On average, there was statistically significant glenoid bone loss (1.84 ± 1.47 mm) following a single instability event (p<0.001), equivalent to 6.8% (95% CI: 4.46%, 9.04%, range 0.71%-17.6%) of the glenoid width. Twelve shoulders (52%) demonstrated glenoid bone loss ≥ 5%, 4 shoulders demonstrated glenoid bone loss ≥13.5% and no shoulders had ≥20% glenoid bone loss after a first-time instability event. Pre-existing glenoid bone loss in subjects with a history of instability was 10.2% (95% CI: 1.96%, 18.35%, range 0.6% - 21.0%). This bone loss increased to 22.8% (95% CI: 20.53%, 25.15%, range 21.2% to 26.0%) following an additional instability event (P=0.0117). All six shoulders with recurrent instability had >20% glenoid bone loss. Conclusion: Glenoid bone loss of 6.8% was observed after a first-time anterior instability event. In the setting of recurrent instability, the total calculated glenoid bone loss was 22.8% with a high prevalence of bony Bankart lesions (5/6). The findings of this study support early stabilization of young, active subjects following a first-time anterior glenohumeral instability event. [Figure: see text][Table: see text]

Recurrent anterior glenohumeral instability: the quantification of glenoid bone loss using magnetic resonance imaging

2014 ◽  
Vol 43 (8) ◽  
pp. 1085-1092 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrícia Martins e Souza ◽  
Bruno Lobo Brandão ◽  
Eduardo Brown ◽  
Geraldo Motta ◽  
Martim Monteiro ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Bone Loss ◽  
Glenoid Bone Loss ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Glenohumeral Instability ◽  
Anterior Glenohumeral Instability

What Is the Most Reliable Method of Measuring Glenoid Bone Loss in Anterior Glenohumeral Instability? A Cadaveric Study Comparing Different Measurement Techniques for Glenoid Bone Loss

2021 ◽  
pp. 036354652110413
Author(s):  
Antonio Arenas-Miquelez ◽  
Danè Dabirrahmani ◽  
Gaurav Sharma ◽  
Petra L. Graham ◽  
Richard Appleyard ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bone Loss ◽  
Measurement Technique ◽  
Measurement Techniques ◽  
Statistical Shape Model ◽  
Glenoid Bone Loss ◽  
Glenohumeral Instability ◽  
Shape Model ◽  
3D Images ◽  
Statistical Shape ◽  
Anterior Glenohumeral Instability

Background: Preoperative quantification of bone loss has a significant effect on surgical decision making and patient outcomes. Various measurement techniques for calculating glenoid bone loss have been proposed in the literature. To date, no studies have directly compared measurement techniques to determine which technique, if any, is the most reliable. Purpose/Hypothesis: To identify the most consistent and accurate techniques for measuring glenoid bone loss in anterior glenohumeral instability. Our hypothesis was that linear measurement techniques would have lower consistency and accuracy than surface area and statistical shape model–based measurement techniques. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: In 6 fresh-frozen human shoulders, 3 incremental bone defects were sequentially created resulting in a total of 18 glenoid bone defect samples. Analysis was conducted using 2D and 3D computed tomography (CT) en face images. A total of 6 observers (3 experienced and 3 with less experience) measured the bone defect of all samples with Horos imaging software using 5 common methods. The methods included 2 linear techniques (Shaha, Griffith), 2 surface techniques (Barchilon, PICO), and 1 statistical shape model formula (Giles). Intraclass correlation (ICC) using a consistency model was used to determine consistency between observers for each of the measurement methods. Paired t tests were used to calculate the accuracy of each measurement technique relative to physical measurement. Results: For the more experienced observers, all methods indicated good consistency (ICC > 0.75; range, 0.75-0.88), except the Shaha method, which indicated moderate consistency (0.65 < ICC < 0.75; range, 0.65-0.74). Estimated consistency among the experienced observers was better for 2D than 3D images, although the differences were not significant (intervals contained 0). For less experienced observers, the Giles method in 2D had the highest estimated consistency (ICC, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.76-0.95), although Giles, Barchilon, Griffith, and PICO methods were not statistically different. Among less experienced observers, the 2D images using Barchilon and Giles methods had significantly higher consistency than the 3D images. Regarding accuracy, most of the methods statistically overestimated the actual physical measurements by a small amount (mean within 5%). The smallest bias was observed for the 2D Barchilon measurements, and the largest differences were observed for Giles and Griffith methods for both observer types. Conclusion: Glenoid bone loss calculation presents variability depending on the measurement technique, with different consistencies and accuracies. We recommend use of the Barchilon method by surgeons who frequently measure glenoid bone loss, because this method presents the best combined consistency and accuracy. However, for surgeons who measure glenoid bone loss occasionally, the most consistent method is the Giles method, although an adjustment for the overestimation bias may be required. Clinical Relevance: The Barchilon method for measuring bone loss has the best combined consistency and accuracy for surgeons who frequently measure bone loss.

Traumatic anterior glenohumeral instability: quantification of glenoid bone loss by spiral CT

2008 ◽  
Vol 113 (4) ◽  
pp. 496-503 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. d’Elia ◽  
A. Di Giacomo ◽  
P. D’Alessandro ◽  
L. C. Cirillo
Keyword(s):  
Bone Loss ◽  
Spiral Ct ◽  
Glenoid Bone Loss ◽  
Glenohumeral Instability ◽  
Anterior Glenohumeral Instability

Recurrence and Revision Rates With Arthroscopic Bankart Repair Compared With the Latarjet Procedure in Competitive Rugby Players With Glenohumeral Instability and a Glenoid Bone Loss <20%

2021 ◽  
Vol 49 (4) ◽  
pp. 866-872
Author(s):  
Luciano A. Rossi ◽  
Ignacio Tanoira ◽  
Tomás Gorodischer ◽  
Ignacio Pasqualini ◽  
Maximiliano Ranalletta
Keyword(s):  
Bone Loss ◽  
Functional Outcomes ◽  
Return To Sport ◽  
Glenoid Bone Loss ◽  
Bankart Repair ◽  
Latarjet Procedure ◽  
Glenohumeral Instability ◽  
Arthroscopic Bankart Repair ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Rugby Players

Background: There is a lack of evidence in the literature comparing outcomes between the arthroscopic Bankart repair and the Latarjet procedure in competitive rugby players with glenohumeral instability and a glenoid bone loss <20%. Purpose: To compare return to sport, functional outcomes, and complications between the arthroscopic Bankart repair and the Latarjet procedure in competitive rugby players with glenohumeral instability and a glenoid bone loss <20%. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Between June 2010 and February 2018, 130 competitive rugby players with anterior shoulder instability were operated on in our institution. The first 80 patients were operated on with the arthroscopic Bankart procedure and the other 50 with the open Latarjet procedure. Return to sport, range of motion (ROM), the Rowe score, and the Athletic Shoulder Outcome Scoring System (ASOSS) were used to assess functional outcomes. Recurrences, reoperations, and complications were also evaluated. Results: In the total population, the mean follow-up was 40 months (range, 24-90 months) and the mean age was 24.2 years (range, 16-33 years). Ninety-two percent of patients were able to return to rugby, 88% at their preinjury level of play. Eighty-nine percent of patients in the Bankart group and 87% in the Latarjet group returned to compete at the same level ( P = .788). No significant difference in shoulder ROM was found between preoperative and postoperative results. The Rowe and ASOSS scores showed statistical improvement after operation ( P < .01). No significant difference in functional scores was found between the groups The Rowe score in the Bankart group increased from a preoperative mean (± SD) of 41 ± 13 points to 89.7 points postoperatively, and in the Latarjet group, from a preoperative mean of 42.5 ± 14 points to 88.4 points postoperatively ( P = .95). The ASOSS score in the Bankart group increased from a preoperative mean of 53.3 ± 3 points to 93.3 ± 6 points postoperatively, and in the Latarjet group, from a preoperative mean of 53.1 ± 3 points to 93.7 ± 4 points postoperatively ( P = .95). There were 18 recurrences (14%). The rate of recurrence was 20% in the Bankart group and 4% in the Latarjet group ( P = .01). There were 15 reoperations (12%). The rate of reoperation was 16% in the Bankart group and 4% in the Latarjet group ( P = .03). There were 6 complications (5%). The rate of complications was 4% in the Bankart group and 6% in the Latarjet group ( P = .55). The proportion of postoperative osteoarthritis was 10% in the Bankart group (8/80 patients) and 12% (6/50 patients) in the Latarjet group ( P = .55). Conclusion: In competitive rugby players with glenohumeral instability and a glenoid bone loss <20%, both the arthroscopic Bankart repair and the Latarjet procedure produced excellent functional outcomes, with most athletes returning to sport at the same level they had before the injury. However, the Bankart procedure was associated with a significantly higher rate of recurrence (20% vs 4%) and reoperation (16% vs 4%) than the Latarjet procedure.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document