Glenoid Reconstruction With Distal Tibia Allograft for Recurrent Anterior Shoulder Instability

Orthopedics ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 40 (1) ◽  
pp. e199-e205 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachel M. Frank ◽  
Anthony A. Romeo ◽  
Matthew T. Provencher
Keyword(s):  
Shoulder Instability ◽  
Distal Tibia ◽  
Anterior Shoulder Instability ◽  
Recurrent Anterior Shoulder Instability ◽  
Glenoid Reconstruction

scholarly journals Radiographic Analysis of Glenoid Morphology after Arthroscopic Latarjet vs Distal Tibial Allograft in the Treatment of Anterior Shoulder Instability

2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (7_suppl4) ◽  
pp. 2325967118S0009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ivan H. Wong ◽  
JP King ◽  
Gordon Boyd ◽  
Michael Mitchell ◽  
Catherine M. Coady
Keyword(s):  
Shoulder Instability ◽  
Distal Tibia ◽  
Cross Sectional Area ◽  
Anterior Shoulder Instability ◽  
Sectional Area ◽  
Common Procedure ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Glenoid Reconstruction ◽  
Graft Resorption

Objectives: The Latarjet procedure for autograft transposition of coracoid to the anterior rim of the glenoid remains the most common procedure for reconstruction of the glenoid after shoulder instability. The anatomic glenoid reconstruction using distal tibial allograft has gained popularity and is suggested to better match the normal glenoid size and shape. However, there is concern for decreased healing and increased resorption using an allograft bone. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the arthroscopic reconstruction of the glenoid with respect to the size, shape, healing, and resorption of autograft coracoid vs allograft distal tibia. Methods: A retrospective review of 50 consecutive patients who had an arthroscopic boney reconstruction of the glenoid (13 coracoid; 37 distal tibial), diagnosed with anterior shoulder instability, and CT confirmed glenoid bone loss >20%. Pre-and post-operative CT scans were reviewed by two fellowship trained musculoskeletal radiologists for: graft position, glenoid concavity, cross sectional area, width, version, total area, osseous union, and graft resorption. Results: Graft nonunion was seen in 3 (23.07%) of the coracoid patients, and in 2 (5.4%) of the tibial allograft patients (OR 5.25; 95% CI: 0.768-35.89). Odds ratios comparing allograft to coracoid for overall resorption was 5.00 (CI: 1.276-19.597). Graft resorption greater than 50% was seen in 3 (8.11%) of the allografts and was absent within the coracoid patients. Graft resorption lesser than 50% was greater in both groups with 27 (72.97%) allograft and 6 (46.15%) coracoid patients. However, no statistically significant difference was found between the two procedures regarding AP diameter of graft (p=0.818) or graft cross sectional area (p=0.797). Conclusion: Arthroscopic anatomic glenoid reconstruction using distal tibial allograft showed greater boney union but higher resorption compared to coracoid autograft. Even so, there was no statistically significant difference between the two procedures regarding final graft surface area and size of grafts. These short-term results suggest distal tibial allograft as an alternative to coracoid autograft in the recreation of glenoid boney morphology.

scholarly journals Arthroscopic Anatomic Glenoid Reconstruction: Analysis of the Learning Curve

2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (11) ◽  
pp. 232596711880790 ◽  
Author(s):  
Iustin Moga ◽  
George Konstantinidis ◽  
Catherine Coady ◽  
Swagata Ghosh ◽  
Ivan Ho-Bun Wong
Keyword(s):  
Shoulder Instability ◽  
Operative Time ◽  
Anterior Shoulder Instability ◽  
Surgical Time ◽  
Anterior Glenoid ◽  
Glenoid Surface ◽  
Levene Test ◽  
Recurrent Anterior Shoulder Instability ◽  
Graft Positioning ◽  
Glenoid Reconstruction

Background: Anatomic glenoid reconstruction involves the use of distal tibial allograft for bony augmentation of the glenoid surface. An all-arthroscopic approach was recently described to avoid damage to the subscapularis tendon and preserve the capsule and labrum. Purpose: To explore and compare change in surgical time between 2 proposed methods used for the treatment of anterior shoulder instability—arthroscopic anatomic glenoid reconstruction (AAGR) and arthroscopic Latarjet (AL)—over successive procedures. We also compared graft positioning on the anterior glenoid surface between the 2 methods. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: This was a single-surgeon retrospective review of 54 cases of surgically treated recurrent anterior shoulder instability: 27 had AAGR with distal tibial allograft, while the other 27 had AL. AAGR with the distal tibial allograft was the primary choice for the treatment of anterior shoulder instability; however, AL was performed when tibial allograft was not available from the bone bank. Thus, there was an overlapping period for those 2 procedures. Procedure start and end times were recorded, and duration was calculated. Postoperative 3-dimensional computed tomography scans were reviewed, and graft position was judged to be in the lower third (desired position), middle third, or upper third of the anterior glenoid surface. To assess learning, these data were organized in chronological order of surgery, and each surgical cohort was divided into 3 chronological clusters of 9 patients each. Learning was assessed through change in operative time over successive clusters, change in variability of operative time among clusters, and change in graft positioning among clusters. Statistical analysis comprised a 2-tailed independent-sample t test and the Levene test for equality of variance. Results: Our study found that AAGR was significantly faster to perform than AL in the early ( P = .001), middle ( P = .001), and late ( P = .05) clusters of each cohort. Duration of surgery did not significantly improve across clusters within each cohort ( P = .15-.79). There were no significant changes in the variability of surgical time in the AAGR group ( P = .09) or the AL group ( P = .13). Desired positioning of the bone graft on the anterior glenoid surface (lower third) was identified more commonly in the AAGR cohort. Conclusion: AAGR is faster to learn and perform than AL for the treatment of recurrent anterior shoulder instability with significant glenoid bone loss. The current study found higher rates of desired graft positioning for AAGR clusters.

scholarly journals Management of The Failed Latarjet Procedure: Outcomes of Revision Surgery With Fresh Distal Tibial Allograft

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (7_suppl5) ◽  
pp. 2325967119S0031
Author(s):  
Andrew S. Bernhardson ◽  
Liam A. Peebles ◽  
Colin P. Murphy ◽  
Anthony Sanchez ◽  
Robert F. LaPrade ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ct Scan ◽  
Revision Surgery ◽  
Shoulder Instability ◽  
Distal Tibia ◽  
Substantial Improvement ◽  
Anterior Shoulder Instability ◽  
Latarjet Procedure ◽  
Recurrent Shoulder Instability ◽  
Hardware Complications ◽  
Recurrent Anterior Shoulder Instability

Objectives: A patient with recurrent instability after a failed Latarjet procedure remains a challenge to address. The vast majority of these result in large amounts of bone loss, resorption, and issues with retained hardware, and there is minimal literature that assesses outcomes of revision surgery following a failed Latarjet. The objective of this study was to determine the outcomes of patients who underwent revision surgery for a recurrent shoulder instability after a failed Latarjet procedure. Methods: All consecutive patients who presented with recurrent anterior shoulder instability after a Latarjet procedure were prospectively enrolled. Patients were included if they had a prior Latarjet, and a history and physical examination findings consistent with recurrent anterior shoulder instability. Patients were excluded if they had prior neurologic injury, a seizure disorder, bone graft requirements to the humeral head, or findings of multidirectional or posterior instability. History of shoulder instability was documented, including initial dislocation history, time of instability, number of prior procedures, and examination findings, as well as plain radiographic data and computed tomography (CT) scan obtained on all patients, and arthritis graded with Samilson and Prieto (SP) grade. All patients were treated with hardware removal, capsulo-labral release with subsequent repair and bony reconstruction via fresh distal tibial allograft to the glenoid. Outcomes pre- and post-revision were assessed with ASES (American Shoulder and Elbow Score), Single Assessment Numerical Evaluation (SANE), and Western Ontario Shoulder Index (WOSI), and statistically compared. All patients underwent a CT scan of the distal tibial allograft at a minimum time point 4 months after surgery. Results: There were 31 patients enrolled (all males), with mean age 25.5 (range, 19 to 38), and with a mean follow-up of 47 months (range, 36 to 60) after the revision with distal tibial allograft. All patients after their Latarjet presented with recurrent shoulder dislocation (11/31) or recurrent subluxation (20/31) and all patients had recurrent shoulder instability on examination. Radiographs demonstrated two fixation screws in all cases, mean SP grade of 0.5 (range, I to III), and CT scan demonstrated that mean 78% of the Latarjet coracoid graft had resorbed (range, 50% to 100%). Preoperative outcomes improved for ASES (40 to 92, p=0.001), SANE (44 to 91, p=0.001), and WOSI (1300 to 310, p=0.001). There were no recurrences, and a final CT scan of the distal tibia revision demonstrated a mean 92% of DTA remained, but 98% union at the glenoid-DTA interface. Conclusion: Although the failed Latarjet with subsequent instability remains a challenge, treatment with fresh a distal tibial allograft provided substantial improvement in terms of stability and function. The vast majority of the failed Latarjet procedures had near complete resorption of the coracoid graft and many had hardware complications. Additional long-term studies are necessary to determine the efficacy of this challenging revision population.

Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes of Distal Tibia Allograft for Glenoid Bone Defect in Recurrent Anterior Shoulder Instability

2015 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. e122-e123
Author(s):  
Matthew T. Provencher ◽  
Petar Golijanin ◽  
Daniel Gross ◽  
Rachel M. Frank ◽  
Nikhil N. Verma ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bone Defect ◽  
Shoulder Instability ◽  
Distal Tibia ◽  
Anterior Shoulder Instability ◽  
Radiographic Outcomes ◽  
Recurrent Anterior Shoulder Instability

Arthroscopic Versus Open Anterior Shoulder Stabilization: A Prospective Randomized Clinical Trial With 15-Year Follow-up With an Assessment of the Glenoid Being “On-Track” and “Off-Track” as a Predictor of Failure

2021 ◽  
pp. 036354652110182
Author(s):  
Craig R. Bottoni ◽  
John D. Johnson ◽  
Liang Zhou ◽  
Sarah G. Raybin ◽  
James S. Shaha ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Shoulder Instability ◽  
Anterior Shoulder Instability ◽  
Shoulder Stabilization ◽  
Mri Studies ◽  
Open Stabilization ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Recurrent Anterior Shoulder Instability

Background: Recent studies have demonstrated equivalent short-term results when comparing arthroscopic versus open anterior shoulder stabilization. However, none have evaluated the long-term clinical outcomes of patients after arthroscopic or open anterior shoulder stabilization, with inclusion of an assessment of preoperative glenoid tracking. Purpose: To compare long-term clinical outcomes of patients with recurrent anterior shoulder instability randomized to open and arthroscopic stabilization groups. Additionally, preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies were used to assess whether the shoulders were “on-track” or “off-track” to ascertain a prediction of increased failure risk. Study Design: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1. Methods: A consecutive series of 64 patients with recurrent anterior shoulder instability were randomized to receive either arthroscopic or open stabilization by a single surgeon. Follow-up assessments were performed at minimum 15-year follow-up using established postoperative evaluations. Clinical failure was defined as any recurrent dislocation postoperatively or subjective instability. Preoperative MRI scans were obtained to calculate the glenoid track and designate shoulders as on-track or off-track. These results were then correlated with the patients’ clinical results at their latest follow-up. Results: Of 64 patients, 60 (28 arthroscopic and 32 open) were contacted or examined for follow-up (range, 15-17 years). The mean age at the time of surgery was 25 years (range, 19-42 years), while the mean age at the time of this assessment was 40 years (range, 34-57 years). The rates of arthroscopic and open long-term failure were 14.3% (4/28) and 12.5% (4/32), respectively. There were no differences in subjective shoulder outcome scores between the treatment groups. Of the 56 shoulders, with available MRI studies, 8 (14.3%) were determined to be off-track. Of these 8 shoulders, there were 2 surgical failures (25.0%; 1 treated arthroscopically, 1 treated open). In the on-track group, 6 of 48 had failed surgery (12.5%; 3 open, 3 arthroscopic [ P = .280]). Conclusion: Long-term clinical outcomes were comparable at 15 years postoperatively between the arthroscopic and open stabilization groups. The presence of an off-track lesion may be associated with a higher rate of recurrent instability in both cohorts at long-term follow-up; however, this study was underpowered to verify this situation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document