3-Dimensional Quantification Glenoid Bone Loss in Recurrent Shoulder Instability – Role in Establishing Parameters for Latarjet vs Bankart Procedure

2021 ◽  
Vol 30 (7) ◽  
pp. e435-e436
Author(s):  
Marine Launay ◽  
Muhammad Naghman Choudhry ◽  
Nicholas Green ◽  
Peter Pivonka ◽  
Kenneth Cutbush ◽  
...  
2010 ◽  
Vol 92 (Suppl 2) ◽  
pp. 133-151 ◽  
Author(s):  
CDR Matthew T Provencher ◽  
Sanjeev Bhatia ◽  
Neil S Ghodadra ◽  
Robert C Grumet ◽  
Bernard R Bach ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (7_suppl4) ◽  
pp. 2325967118S0009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony F. De Giacomo ◽  
Hithem Rahmi ◽  
Sevag Bastian ◽  
Christopher Klein ◽  
John Itamura

Objectives: Treatment options for recurrent shoulder instability, in the setting of significant glenoid bone loss, consists of several iterations of bone stabilization procedures. However, advanced arthritic changes with the Laterjet procedure and rapid resorption changes with the iliac crest bone graft reconstruction has led into the search for more optimal surgical reconstruction options. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the clinical and functional outcomes of patients with recurrent shoulder instability, with significant glenoid bone loss, treated with fresh distal tibial allograft reconstruction with regards to recurrence, revision surgery, and complications. Methods: At a single institution, all consecutive patients with recurrent shoulder instability and at least 15% anterior glenoid bone loss, undergoing distal tibial allograft reconstruction, between 2011 to 2016, were identified by diagnostic and procedural codes. All clinical notes, diagnostic imaging, and operative reports were reviewed in detail. From these sources, demographics, operative techniques, and radiographic parameters were collected and measured. Functional outcome scores were prospectively collected from patients. The primary outcome of the study was the Disability of Arm, Shoulder, Hand (DASH) score. The secondary outcomes of the study were the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain score, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) score, recurrent instability, revision surgery, and complications. Results: At 6 years, there were a total of 36 distal tibial allograft reconstructions performed in patients with recurrent shoulder instability in the setting of significant glenoid bone loss. Amongst this cohort, average age was 35 years old with 72% of patients being male. The dominant extremity was involved in 20 (56%) of patients and 24 (67%) of patients had previous surgery to address episodes of shoulder instability. Follow-up, for the entire cohort was on average 15.5 months. In comparison to preoperative range of motion, after surgery there was significantly less abduction (P=0.01). At final follow-up, patients undergoing distial tibial allograft reconstruction showed trend towards significant improvement in the DASH score (preoperative DASH=50.7, postoperative DASH=37.1, P=0.09). In like manner, there was significant improvement in both the VAS score (P=0.001) and the SANE score (P=0.002). There was no significant difference in functional outcome scores between those patients who had failed a previous surgery for instability. Recurrent instability, after distal tibial allograft reconstruction, occurred in 4 (11%) of patients and 8 (22%) of patients underwent an additional surgical procedure. Complications occurred in 31% of patients, with the most common complication being rupture of the subscapularis. Conclusion: This study provides functional outcomes in one of the largest consecutive cohort of patients undergoing distal tibial allograft reconstruction for recurrent shoulder instability due to significant glenoid bone loss. The study suggests that distal tibial allograft reconstruction may provide improved functional outcomes in patients with recurrent shoulder instability. After this procedure, 89% of patients did not experience any additional episodes of shoulder instability. Despite these encouraging results, complications are common after this procedure, with 31% of patients experiencing a complication. [Table: see text][Table: see text]


2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. 232596712110075
Author(s):  
Rachel M. Frank ◽  
Hytham S. Salem ◽  
Catherine Richardson ◽  
Michael O’Brien ◽  
Jon M. Newgren ◽  
...  

Background: Nearly all studies describing shoulder stabilization focus on male patients. Little is known regarding the clinical outcomes of female patients undergoing shoulder stabilization, and even less is understood about females with glenoid bone loss. Purpose: To assess the clinical outcomes of female patients with recurrent anterior shoulder instability treated with the Latarjet procedure. Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: All cases of female patients who had recurrent anterior shoulder instability with ≥15% anterior glenoid bone loss and underwent the Latarjet procedure were analyzed. Patients were evaluated after a minimum 2-year postoperative period with scores of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons form, Simple Shoulder Test, and pain visual analog scale. Results: Of the 22 patients who met our criteria, 5 (22.7%) were lost to follow-up, leaving 17 (77.2%) available for follow-up with a mean ± SD age of 31.7 ± 12.9 years. Among these patients, 16 (94.1%) underwent 1.6 ± 0.73 ipsilateral shoulder operations (range, 1-3) before undergoing the Latarjet procedure. Preoperative indications for surgery included recurrent instability with bone loss in all cases. After a mean follow-up of 40.2 ± 22.9 months, patients experienced significant score improvements in the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons form, Simple Shoulder Test, and pain visual analog scale ( P < .05 for all). There were 2 reoperations (11.8%). There were no cases of neurovascular injuries or other complications. Conclusion: Female patients with recurrent shoulder instability with glenoid bone loss can be successfully treated with the Latarjet procedure, with outcomes similar to those of male patients in the previously published literature. This information can be used to counsel female patients with recurrent instability with significant anterior glenoid bone loss.


Author(s):  
Christopher Nacca ◽  
Joseph Gil ◽  
Rohit Badida ◽  
Joseph Crisco ◽  
Brett Owens

2022 ◽  
Vol 104-B (1) ◽  
pp. 12-18
Author(s):  
Simon Weil ◽  
Magnus Arnander ◽  
Yemi Pearse ◽  
Duncan Tennent

Aims The amount of glenoid bone loss is an important factor in deciding between soft-tissue and bony reconstruction when managing anterior shoulder instability. Accurate and reproducible measurement of glenoid bone loss is therefore vital in evaluation of shoulder instability and recommending specific treatment. The aim of this systematic review is to identify the range methods and measurement techniques employed in clinical studies treating glenoid bone loss. Methods A systematic review of the PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase databases was undertaken to cover a ten-year period from February 2011 to February 2021. We identified clinical studies that incorporated bone loss assessment in the methodology as part of the decision-making in the management of patients with anterior shoulder instability. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA) were used. Results A total of 5,430 articles were identified from the initial search, of which 82 studies met the final inclusion criteria. A variety of imaging methods were used: three studies did not specify which modality was used, and a further 13 used CT or MRI interchangeably. There was considerable heterogeneity among the studies that specified the technique used to quantify glenoid bone loss. A large proportion of the studies did not specify the technique used. Conclusion This systematic review has identified significant heterogeneity in both the imaging modality and method used to measure glenoid bone loss. The recommendation is that as a minimum for publication, authors should be required to reference the specific measurement technique used. Without this simple standardization, it is impossible to determine whether any published paper should influence clinical practice or should be dismissed. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(1):12–18.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document