scholarly journals Open Posterior Glenoid Reconstruction Using a Distal Tibial Allograft

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (6) ◽  
pp. 263502542110479
Author(s):  
Tracy M. Tauro ◽  
Nolan B. Condron ◽  
Ryan J. Quigley ◽  
Blake M. Bodendorfer ◽  
Brian J. Cole
Keyword(s):  
Bone Loss ◽  
Ct Scan ◽  
Glenohumeral Joint ◽  
Articular Surface ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Glenoid Bone Loss ◽  
Bony Union ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Glenoid Reconstruction

Background: Posterior instability is less common than anterior instability but can be seen in contact athletes and posttraumatically. Distal tibial allograft reconstruction for glenoid bone loss was first described by Provencher and colleagues in 2009 and an arthroscopic technique for posterior glenoid reconstruction using a distal tibial allograft was later described by Gupta et al in 2013. Indications: The primary indications for posterior distal tibial allograft include the failure of conservative management, recurrent instability after an arthroscopic stabilization, or glenoid bone loss > 20% to 25%. Technique Description: The patient is positioned in lateral decubitus, and examination under anesthesia is performed. Following arthroscopic evaluation, an incision is made medial to the posterolateral aspect of the acromion at the glenohumeral joint level. Electrocautery is carried to the deltoid, which is split in line with its fibers. A split between the infraspinatus and teres minor is performed. Vertical capsulotomy is performed, and deep retractors are placed. Attention is turned to the back table for graft preparation. The graft is measured, marked on the lateral aspect of the articular surface, and cut accordingly. Two 3.5-mm holes are drilled 1 cm apart, and the graft is thoroughly irrigated before being placed into the wound. A 2.5-mm drill is used in the 3.5-mm holes, and two 3.5-mm solid fully threaded screws are placed under power and tightened by hand. The wound is closed in the traditional fashion. Results: Graft nonunion and/or resorption are the primary concerns following posterior distal tibial allograft. Amar et al found no cases of nonunion or partial unions on 6-month computerized tomography (CT) scan, most patients having no or <50% resorption. Millet et al also found bony union by CT scan and improved patient-reported outcome measures. A case series by Gilat et al found 90% of patients reported restoration of stability. Discussion/Conclusion: Posterior distal tibial allograft is a successful surgical intervention for patients with recurrent posterior shoulder instability with glenoid bone loss.

scholarly journals Return to Sport After Large Single-Surface, Multisurface, or Bipolar Osteochondral Allograft Transplantation in the Knee Using Shell Grafts

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 232596712096792
Author(s):  
James L. Cook ◽  
Kylee Rucinski ◽  
Cory R. Crecelius ◽  
Richard Ma ◽  
James P. Stannard
Keyword(s):  
Femoral Condyle ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Return To Sport ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Osteochondral Allograft ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Recreational Athletes ◽  
Patient Reported

Background: Return to sport (RTS) after osteochondral allograft (OCA) transplantation for large unipolar femoral condyle defects has been consistent, but many athletes are affected by more severe lesions. Purpose: To examine outcomes for athletes who have undergone large single-surface, multisurface, or bipolar shell OCA transplantation in the knee. Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: Data from a prospective OCA transplantation registry were assessed for athletes who underwent knee transplantation for the first time (primary transplant) between June 2015 and March 2018 for injury or overuse-related articular defects. Inclusion criteria were preinjury Tegner level ≥5 and documented type and level of sport (or elite unit active military duty); in addition, patients were required to have a minimum of 1-year follow-up outcomes, including RTS data. Patient characteristics, surgery type, Tegner level, RTS, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), compliance with rehabilitation, revisions, and failures were assessed and compared for statistically significant differences. Results: There were 37 included athletes (mean age, 34 years; range, 15-69 years; mean body mass index, 26.2 kg/m2; range, 18-35 kg/m2) who underwent large single-surface (n = 17), multisurface (n = 4), or bipolar (n = 16) OCA transplantation. The highest preinjury median Tegner level was 9 (mean, 7.9 ± 1.7; range, 5-10). At the final follow-up, 25 patients (68%) had returned to sport; 17 (68%) returned to the same or higher level of sport compared with the highest preinjury level. The median time to RTS was 16 months (range, 7-26 months). Elite unit military, competitive collegiate, and competitive high school athletes returned at a significantly higher proportion ( P < .046) than did recreational athletes. For all patients, the Tegner level at the final follow-up (median, 6; mean, 6.1 ± 2.7; range, 1-10) was significantly lower than that at the highest preinjury level ( P = .007). PROMs were significantly improved at the final follow-up compared with preoperative levels and reached or exceeded clinically meaningful differences. OCA revisions were performed in 2 patients (5%), and failures requiring total knee arthroplasty occurred in 2 patients (5%), all of whom were recreational athletes. Noncompliance was documented in 4 athletes (11%) and was 15.5 times more likely ( P = .049) to be associated with failure or a need for revision than for compliant patients. Conclusion: Large single-surface, multisurface, or bipolar shell OCA knee transplantations in athletes resulted in two-thirds of these patients returning to sport at 16 to 24 months after transplantation. Combined, the revision and failure rates were 10%; thus, 90% of patients were considered to have successful 2- to 4-year outcomes with significant improvements in pain and function, even when patients did not RTS.

scholarly journals A Single Case Narrative of Spirituality Following Aphasia from Traumatic Brain Injury: Findings about Forgiveness and Freedom Using WELLHEAD and SHALOM

Religions ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (5) ◽  
pp. 301 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katharyn Mumby
Keyword(s):  
Traumatic Brain Injury ◽  
Brain Injury ◽  
Single Case ◽  
Health Assessment ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Structured Interview ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Spiritual Health ◽  
Patient Reported

Rehabilitation has neglected the spirituality of people with aphasia, a neurogenic impairment of language for communication and thought processes. Aphasia reduces scope for adjustment processes where words are normal currency, such as forgiveness and reconciliation. A single case narrative was generated from a case series exploring the feasibility of spiritual health assessment in aphasia. The individual had traumatic brain injury, with the primary symptom of aphasia, giving the first detailed account of its kind. The WELLHEAD spirituality toolkit provided a structured interview approach, exploring spirituality in terms of ‘meaning and purpose’ within four dimensions, WIDE, LONG, HIGH and DEEP, incorporating patient-reported outcome measures and goal-setting, with feedback interviews. Spiritual Health and Life Orientation Measure (SHALOM) generated a comparator spiritual health assessment. The quantitative feedback measures and self-reported outcomes were complemented by detailed qualitative interview transcripts subject to systematic thematic analysis in NVivo. The findings were co-constructed and systematically verified. This non-religious narrative evidenced the accessibility, acceptability, and impact of the resources. Self-forgiveness was paramount for freedom to journey into the unknown beyond self with ‘Calm’, towards helping others and accepting help. Religion, Faith and Belief were reconceptualised. Forgiveness of self and others was integral and instrumental in recovery, offering avenues for further investigation and application.

Glenoid Bone Loss in Posterior Shoulder Instability: Prevalence and Outcomes in Arthroscopic Treatment

2018 ◽  
Vol 46 (5) ◽  
pp. 1053-1057 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adam Hines ◽  
Jay B. Cook ◽  
James S. Shaha ◽  
Kevin Krul ◽  
Steve H. Shaha ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bone Loss ◽  
Shoulder Instability ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Glenoid Bone Loss ◽  
Labral Repair ◽  
Arthroscopic Stabilization ◽  
Posterior Instability ◽  
Glenohumeral Instability ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Return To Duty

Background: Glenoid bone loss is a well-accepted risk factor for failure after arthroscopic stabilization of anterior glenohumeral instability. Glenoid bone loss in posterior instability has been noted relative to its existence in posterior instability surgery. Its effect on outcomes after arthroscopic stabilization has not been specifically evaluated and reported. Purpose: The purpose was to evaluate the presence of posterior glenoid bone loss in a series of patients who had undergone arthroscopic isolated stabilization of the posterior labrum. Bone loss was then correlated to return-to-duty rates, complications, and validated patient-reported outcomes. Study Design: Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A retrospective review was conducted at a single military treatment facility over a 4-year period (2010-2013). Patients with primary posterior instability who underwent arthroscopic isolated posterior labral repair were included. Preoperative magnetic resonance imaging was used to calculate posterior glenoid bone loss using a standardized “perfect circle” technique. Demographics, return to duty, complications, and reoperations, as well as outcomes scores including the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation and the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI) scores, were obtained. Outcomes were analyzed across all patients based on percentage of posterior glenoid bone loss. Bone loss was then categorized as below or above the subcritical threshold of 13.5% to determine if bone loss effected outcomes similar to what has been shown in anterior instability. Results: There were 43 consecutive patients with primary, isolated posterior instability, and 32 (74.4%) completed WOSI scoring. Mean follow-up was 53.7 months (range, 25-82 months) The mean posterior glenoid bone loss was 7.3% (0%-21.5%). Ten of 32 patients (31%) had no appreciable bone loss. Bone loss exceeded 13.5% in 7 of 32 patients (22%), and 2 patients (6%) exceeded 20% bone loss. Return to full duty or activity was nearly 90% overall. However, those with >13.5%, subcritical glenoid bone loss, were statistically less likely to return to full duty (relative risk = 1.8), but outcomes scores, complications, and revision rates were otherwise not different in those with no or minimal bone loss versus those with more significant amounts. Conclusion: Posterior glenoid bone loss has not previously been evaluated independently relative to patients with shoulder instability repairs. Sixty-nine percent of our patients had measurable bone loss, and 22% had greater than 13.5%, or above subcritical bone loss. While these patients were statistically less likely to return to full duty, the reoperation rate, complications, and patient-reported outcomes between groups were not different.

scholarly journals Automated 3D MRI Allows for Accurate Evaluation of Glenoid Bone Loss as Compared to 3D CT

2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (7_suppl4) ◽  
pp. 2325967118S0008
Author(s):  
Drew A. Lansdown ◽  
Robert Dawe ◽  
Gregory L. Cvetanovich ◽  
Nikhil N. Verma ◽  
Brian J. Cole ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bone Loss ◽  
3D Reconstruction ◽  
Ct Scan ◽  
Glenoid Bone Loss ◽  
Ct Scans ◽  
Reconstruction Method ◽  
Slice Thickness ◽  
3D Ct ◽  
Ct Reconstruction ◽  
3D Mri

Objectives: Glenoid bone loss is frequently present in the setting of recurrent shoulder instability. The magnitude of bone loss is an important determinant of the optimal surgical treatment. The current gold-standard for measurement of glenoid bone loss is three-dimensional (3D) reconstruction of a computed tomography (CT) scan. CT scans, however, carry an inherent risk of radiation and increased cost for a second modality. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) offers excellent soft tissue contrast and may allow resolution of bony structures to generate 3D reconstructions without a risk of ionizing radiation. We hypothesized that automated 3D MRI reconstruction would offer similar measurements of glenoid bone loss as recorded from a 3D CT scan in a clinical setting. Methods: A retrospective review was performed for fourteen patients who had both pre-operative MRI scan and CT scan of the shoulder. All MR scans were performed on a 1.5 T scanner (Siemens) utilizing a Dixon chemical shift separation sequence and the out-of-phase images with 0.90 mm slice thickness. Reconstructions of the glenoid were performed from axial images (Figure 1A) using an open-platform image processing system (3D Slicer; slicer.org). A single point on the glenoid was selected and a standard threshold was used to build a 3D model (Figure 1B). High-resolution CT scans underwent 3D reconstruction in Slicer based on Houndsfield Unit thresholding. Glenoid bone loss on both scans was measured with the Pico method by defining a circle of best fit using the inferior 2/3 of the glenoid and determining the percent area missing from this circle. Pearson’s correlation coefficient was utilized to determine the similarity between MR and CT based measurements. Statistical significance was defined as p<0.05. Results: The correlation between 3D MR and CT-based measurements of glenoid bone loss was excellent (r = 0.95, p<0.0001). The mean bone loss as measured by the 3D MR was 13.2 +- 7.2% and was 12.5 +- 8.6% for the 3D CT reconstruction (p=0.32). Bone loss in this cohort ranged from 3.7-25.4% on 3D MR and 1.4-26.0% on 3D CT. The root-mean-square difference between measurements was 2.7%. Conclusion: There was excellent agreement between automated 3D MR and 3D CT measurements of glenoid bone loss and minimal differences between these measurements. This reconstruction method requires minimal post-processing, no manual segmentation, and is obtained with widely-available MR sequences. This method has the potential to decrease the utilization for CT scans in determining glenoid bone loss. [Figure: see text]

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 Objective Outcome Measures Continue to Improve from 6 to 12 Months after Conservatively Treated Distal Radius Fractures in the Elderly—A Prospective Evaluation of 50 Patients

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (9) ◽  
pp. 1831
Author(s):  
Rikke Thorninger ◽  
Daniel Wæver ◽  
Jonas Pedersen ◽  
Jens Tvedegaard-Christensen ◽  
Michael Tjørnild ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Distal Radius ◽  
Case Series ◽  
The Elderly ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Distal Radius Fractures ◽  
Fracture Dislocation ◽  
Radius Fractures ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Prospective Case Series

Distal radius fractures (DRF) in the elderly population above 65 years represent 18% of all fractures and are thereby the second most frequent fracture in the elderly. Fracture dislocation and comminution are often used to determine whether non-operative or operative treatment is indicated. The purpose of this prospective case series of minimally displaced DRF treated with a dorsal cast was to assess the complication rate and patient-reported outcome measures. This single-centre, single-blinded, prospective case series followed 50 conservatively treated DRF patients for one year. Primary outcomes were complications and Quick Disability of Arm Shoulder and Hand (qDASH) score. Secondary outcomes were range of motion (ROM), grip strength and pain, and Patient-Rated Wrist/Hand Evaluation (PRWHE). Results showed only minor complications with a return to prior ROM, qDASH, and pain after 12 months and improvement in outcomes after 6–12 months. In conclusion, the majority of DRF patients who were treated non-operatively with five-week dorsal casting recover fully after minimally displaced DRF. This standard approach is thus considered safe, and the present results provide a reference for other studies.

scholarly journals Arthroscopic Distal Tibial Allograft for Posterior Glenoid Reconstruction

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
pp. 263502542110067
Author(s):  
Benjamin W. Hoyt ◽  
Cory A. Riccio ◽  
Lance E. LeClere ◽  
Kelly G. Kilcoyne ◽  
Jonathan F. Dickens
Keyword(s):  
Bone Loss ◽  
Distal Tibia ◽  
Glenoid Bone Loss ◽  
Labral Repair ◽  
Anatomic Reconstruction ◽  
Joint Surface ◽  
Bone Block ◽  
Posterior Instability ◽  
Invasive Approach ◽  
Glenoid Reconstruction

Background: Posterior glenoid bone loss occurs in more than two-thirds of patients with posterior glenohumeral instability, with 14% to 22% having greater than subcritical bone loss (13.5%), a marker for potential need for bony augmentation versus soft tissue-only procedures. Several techniques are described to augment either the version or volume of the glenoid surface including osteotomies, autograft transfers, and allograft tibia transfers. Indications: Arthroscopic-assisted allograft distal tibia bone block augmentation to the posterior glenoid is indicated for revision posterior instability procedures with posterior bone loss and in primary cases of posterior instability with critical bone loss. Technique Description: Arthroscopic posterior glenoid reconstruction with allograft distal tibia and posterior labral repair in the lateral position is presented. This technique uses standard instrument sets and requires no patient repositioning. The preplanned tibial bone block is prepared on a back table either prior to, or concurrently with, arthroscopic procedure. After creation of high posterior portal and standard anterior portal, a sucker-shaver and burr are used to create a perpendicular edge for apposition of the allograft tibia. The bone block is introduced through a longitudinal incision and underdelivered to the prepared surface under the liberated labrum. The articular surface of the graft and glenoid are aligned and cannulated screws are used to compress the bone block against the native glenoid. The posterior labral tissue is then mobilized over the graft and repaired to the native glenoid. Results: Arthroscopic distal tibial allograft augmentation for posterior bone loss restored stability and function in a small cohort of patients. Patients reported improved stability in the immediate postoperative course, with restoration of motion by 2 months. Push-ups, pull-ups, and return to full active duty without restrictions is allowed at 6 months postoperatively. Imaging at 3 months postoperatively has shown excellent graft healing. Discussion: The benefits of allograft tibia augmentation for posterior instability with glenoid bone loss include an anatomic joint surface restoration including articular cartilage, lack of donor site morbidity, and a minimally invasive approach. When performed arthroscopically, this technique permits concurrent posterior labral repair and anatomic reconstruction.

scholarly journals The Influence of Health Perception on Shoulder Outcome Measure Scores

2019 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 173-182
Author(s):  
Richard E. Hardy ◽  
Engin Sungur ◽  
Christopher Butler ◽  
Jefferson C. Brand
Keyword(s):  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Prediction Models ◽  
Constant Score ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Individualized Care ◽  
Sf 36 ◽  
Patient Reported

Background: Patient reported outcome measures assess clinical progress from the patient’s perspective. This study explored the relationship between shoulder outcome measures (The Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand [DASH], American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standard Shoulder Assessment score [ASES], and Constant score) by comparing the best possible scores obtained in an asymptomatic population compared to overall perception of health, as measured by the SF-36 outcome measure.Methods: Volunteers (age range, 20?69 years) with asymptomatic shoulders and no history of shoulder pain, injury, surgery, imaging, or pathology (bilaterally) were included. The DASH and ASES measures were completed by 111 volunteers (72 female, 39 male), of which 92 completed the Constant score (56 female, 36 male). The SF-36 was completed by all volunteers (level of evidence: IV case series).Results: The mean (x) score for ASES measure on the right shoulder was higher for the left-hand dominant side (x=100.00 vs. 95.02, <i>p</i>-value<0.001); no other significant differences. Better SF-36 scores were associated with better DASH scores. Our prediction models suggest that perception of overall health affects the DASH scores. Sex affected all three shoulder measures scores.Conclusions: Comparing scores of shoulder outcome measures to the highest possible score is not the most informative way to interpret patient progress. Variables such as health status, sex, and hand dominance need to be considered. Furthermore, it is possible to use these variables to predict scores of outcome measures, which facilitates the healthcare provider to deliver individualized care to their patients.

scholarly journals WHAT ARE THE PREDICTORS OF POOR PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES FOLLOWING SHOULDER INSTABILITY SURGERY?

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (4_suppl3) ◽  
pp. 2325967120S0017
Author(s):  
Ahmad F. Bayomy ◽  
Isaac Briskin ◽  
Lauren E. Grobaty ◽  
Elizabeth Sosic ◽  
Greg J. Strnad ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Articular Cartilage ◽  
Bone Loss ◽  
Revision Surgery ◽  
Shoulder Instability ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Glenoid Bone Loss ◽  
Smoking History ◽  
Labral Tears ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
One Year

Background: Prospectively-collected patient-reported outcomes (PROs) following shoulder instability surgery are limited. Attention has been drawn to standardizing these outcome measures in the adolescent literature. Hypothesis/Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate which factors predict unfavorable PROs following shoulder instability surgery, including a “No” response to the Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) question. We hypothesized that poor outcomes are associated with adolescent males, bone loss, larger labral tears, and articular cartilage injury. Methods: A cohort of patients age 13 years and older undergoing shoulder instability surgery were prospectively enrolled in point-of-care data collection at a single institution across 12 surgeons from 2015-2017. Demographics, ASES and SANE responses, and surgical findings were obtained at baseline. ASES, SANE, and PASS responses as well as revision surgery were queried at least one year post-operatively. Patients with isolated posterior labral tears and prior ipsilateral shoulder surgery were excluded. Regression analyses were performed. Results: A total 268 patients met inclusion criteria of which 201 completed follow-up responses (75%). Non-responders had a greater BMI, smaller proportion of glenoid bone loss, fewer Hill-Sachs lesions, and lower baseline ASES scores by 7.5 points (p < 0.05). Responders’ mean age was 25.5 years and 23% were female. Revision surgery occurred in 2.5% of these patients, and 81% responded “Yes” to PASS. A “Yes” response correlated to mean 31-point improvement in ASES and 34-point improvement in SANE scores. On univariate analysis, “No” responders were more likely to have a smoking history, a larger proportion of glenoid bone loss, and revision surgery (p < 0.05). However, on multivariate analysis, only combined labral tears (anterior/inferior plus superior or posterior tears) and injured capsules were associated with greater odds of responding “No” to PASS and with lower ASES and SANE scores (p ≤ 0.05) (Table 1). Age, sex, Hill-Sachs lesions, and grade III/IV articular cartilage injuries were not associated with variation in any PROs. Conclusion: In this prospective cohort, patients largely approve of their symptom state at one year or greater following shoulder instability surgery. A PASS “Yes” response occurred in 81% of patients and correlated to a clinically and statistically significant improvement in ASES and SANE scores. Combined labral tears and injured capsules were negative prognosticators across PROs, whereas age, sex, and Hill-Sachs lesions were not. Table: [Table: see text]

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document