Quantifying Glenoid Bone Loss in Anterior Shoulder Instability

2012 ◽  
Vol 40 (11) ◽  
pp. 2569-2577 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aaron J. Bois ◽  
Stephen D. Fening ◽  
Josh Polster ◽  
Morgan H. Jones ◽  
Anthony Miniaci
Keyword(s):  
Bone Loss ◽  
Laser Scanning ◽  
Glenohumeral Joint ◽  
Imaging Techniques ◽  
Intraclass Correlation ◽  
Glenoid Bone Loss ◽  
Percentage Error ◽  
Anterior Shoulder Instability ◽  
Glenohumeral Instability ◽  
Loss Range

Background: Glenoid support is critical for stability of the glenohumeral joint. An accepted noninvasive method of quantifying glenoid bone loss does not exist. Purpose: To perform independent evaluations of the reliability and accuracy of standard 2-dimensional (2-D) and 3-dimensional (3-D) computed tomography (CT) measurements of glenoid bone deficiency. Study Design: Descriptive laboratory study. Methods: Two sawbone models were used; one served as a model for 2 anterior glenoid defects and the other for 2 anteroinferior defects. For each scapular model, predefect and defect data were collected for a total of 6 data sets. Each sample underwent 3-D laser scanning followed by CT scanning. Six physicians measured linear indicators of bone loss (defect length and width-to-length ratio) on both 2-D and 3-D CT and quantified bone loss using the glenoid index method on 2-D CT and using the glenoid index, ratio, and Pico methods on 3-D CT. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to assess agreement, and percentage error was used to compare radiographic and true measurements. Results: With use of 2-D CT, the glenoid index and defect length measurements had the least percentage error (−4.13% and 7.68%, respectively); agreement was very good (ICC, .81) for defect length only. With use of 3-D CT, defect length (0.29%) and the Pico1 method (4.93%) had the least percentage error. Agreement was very good for all linear indicators of bone loss (range, .85-.90) and for the ratio linear and Pico surface area methods used to quantify bone loss (range, .84-.98). Overall, 3-D CT results demonstrated better agreement and accuracy compared to 2-D CT. Conclusion: None of the methods assessed in this study using 2-D CT was found to be valid, and therefore, 2-D CT is not recommended for these methods. However, the length of glenoid defects can be reliably and accurately measured on 3-D CT. The Pico and ratio techniques are most reliable; however, the Pico1 method accurately quantifies glenoid bone loss in both the anterior and anteroinferior locations. Future work is required to implement valid imaging techniques of glenoid bone loss into clinical practice. Clinical Relevance: This is one of the only studies to date that has investigated both the reliability and accuracy of multiple indicators and quantification methods that evaluate glenoid bone loss in anterior glenohumeral instability. These data are critical to ensure valid methods are used for preoperative assessment and to determine when a glenoid bone augmentation procedure is indicated.

scholarly journals The role of bone in glenohumeral stability

2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (12) ◽  
pp. 632-640 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giovanni Di Giacomo ◽  
Luigi Piscitelli ◽  
Mattia Pugliese
Keyword(s):  
Bone Loss ◽  
Humeral Head ◽  
Glenohumeral Joint ◽  
Compression Fracture ◽  
Glenoid Bone Loss ◽  
Anterior Shoulder Instability ◽  
Glenohumeral Instability ◽  
Glenohumeral Ligaments ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
The Hill

Shoulder stability depends on several factors, either anatomical or functional. Anatomical factors can be further subclassified under soft tissue (shoulder capsule, glenoid rim, glenohumeral ligaments etc) and bony structures (glenoid cavity and humeral head). Normal glenohumeral stability is maintained through factors mostly pertaining to the scapular side: glenoid version, depth and inclination, along with scapular dynamic positioning, can potentially cause decreased stability depending on the direction of said variables in the different planes. No significant factors in normal humeral anatomy seem to play a tangible role in affecting glenohumeral stability. When the glenohumeral joint suffers an episode of acute dislocation, either anterior (more frequent) or posterior, bony lesions often develop on both sides: a compression fracture of the humeral head (or Hill–Sachs lesion) and a bone loss of the glenoid rim. Interaction of such lesions can determine ‘re-engagement’ and recurrence. The concept of ‘glenoid track’ can help quantify an increased risk of recurrence: when the Hill–Sachs lesion engages the anterior glenoid rim, it is defined as ‘off-track’; if it does not, it is an ‘on-track’ lesion. The position of the Hill–Sachs lesion and the percentage of glenoid bone loss are critical factors in determining the likelihood of recurrent instability and in managing treatment. In terms of posterior glenohumeral instability, the ‘gamma angle concept’ can help ascertain which lesions are prone to recurrence based on the sum of specific angles and millimetres of posterior glenoid bone loss, in a similar fashion to what happens in anterior shoulder instability. Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2018;3:632-640. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.3.180028

scholarly journals Three-Dimensional Quantification of Glenoid Bone Loss in Anterior Shoulder Instability: The Anatomic Concave Surface Area Method

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
pp. 232596712110110
Author(s):  
Marine Launay ◽  
Muhammad Naghman Choudhry ◽  
Nicholas Green ◽  
Jashint Maharaj ◽  
Kenneth Cutbush ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bone Loss ◽  
Surface Area ◽  
Shoulder Instability ◽  
Interobserver Reliability ◽  
Intraclass Correlation ◽  
Glenoid Bone Loss ◽  
Concave Surface ◽  
Anterior Shoulder Instability ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Best Fit

Background: Recurrent shoulder instability may be associated with glenoid erosion and bone loss. Accurate quantification of bone loss significantly influences the contemplation of surgical procedure. In addition, assessment of bone loss is crucial for surgical planning and accurate graft placement during surgery. Purpose: To quantify the concave surface area of glenoid bone loss by using 3-dimensional (3D) segmented models of the scapula and to compare this method with the best-fit circle and glenoid height/width methods, which use the glenoid rim for bone loss estimations. Study Design: Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 2. Methods: A total of 36 consecutive preoperative bilateral computed tomography scans of patients eligible for a primary Latarjet procedure were selected from our institutional surgical database (mean patient age, 29 ± 9 years; 31 men and 5 women). The 3D models of both scapulae were generated using medical segmentation software and were used to map the anatomic concave surface area (ACSA) of the inferior glenoid using the diameter of the best-fit circle of the healthy glenoid. Bone loss was calculated as a ratio of the difference between surface areas of both glenoids (healthy and pathological) against the anatomic circular surface area of the healthy glenoid (the ACSA method). These results were compared with bone loss calculations using the best-fit circle and glenoid height/width methods. Inter- and intraobserver reliability were also calculated. Results: The mean (± SD) bone loss calculated using the ACSA, the best-fit circle, and glenoid height/width methods was 9.4% ± 6.7%, 14.3% ± 6.8%, and 17.6% ± 7.3%, respectively. The ACSA method showed excellent interobserver reliability, with an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.95 versus those for the best-fit circle (ICC, 0.71) and glenoid height/width (ICC, 0.79) methods. Conclusion: Quantification of instability-related glenoid bone loss is reliable using the 3D ACSA method.

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.

scholarly journals Clinical Outcomes of Shoulder Stabilization in Females With Glenoid Bone Loss

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. 232596712110075
Author(s):  
Rachel M. Frank ◽  
Hytham S. Salem ◽  
Catherine Richardson ◽  
Michael O’Brien ◽  
Jon M. Newgren ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bone Loss ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Shoulder Instability ◽  
Glenoid Bone Loss ◽  
Anterior Shoulder Instability ◽  
Latarjet Procedure ◽  
Shoulder Stabilization ◽  
Simple Shoulder Test ◽  
Female Patients

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.

Reporting of glenoid bone loss measurement in clinical studies and the need for standardization

2022 ◽  
Vol 104-B (1) ◽  
pp. 12-18
Author(s):  
Simon Weil ◽  
Magnus Arnander ◽  
Yemi Pearse ◽  
Duncan Tennent
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Bone Loss ◽  
Shoulder Instability ◽  
Clinical Studies ◽  
Imaging Modality ◽  
Measurement Techniques ◽  
Specific Treatment ◽  
Glenoid Bone Loss ◽  
Anterior Shoulder Instability ◽  
Significant Heterogeneity

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.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document