scholarly journals Biomechanical Comparison of the Latarjet Procedure with and without Capsular Repair

2016 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 84 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew T. Kleiner ◽  
William B. Payne ◽  
Michelle H. McGarry ◽  
James E. Tibone ◽  
Thay Q. Lee
2015 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 489-495 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael H. Abdulian ◽  
Curtis J. Kephart ◽  
Michelle H. McGarry ◽  
James E. Tibone ◽  
Thay Q. Lee

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Aditya Prinja ◽  
Antony Raymond ◽  
Mahesh Pimple

Traumatic anterior instability of the shoulder is commonly treated with the Latarjet procedure, which involves transfer of the coracoid process with a conjoint tendon to the anterior aspect of the glenoid. The two most common techniques of the Latarjet are the classical and congruent arc techniques. The aim of this study was to evaluate the difference in force required to dislocate the shoulder after classical and congruent arc Latarjet procedures were performed. Fourteen cadaveric shoulders were dissected and osteotomised to produce a bony Bankart lesion of 25% of the articular surface leading to an “inverted pear-shaped” glenoid. An anteroinferior force was applied whilst the arm was in abduction and external rotation using a pulley system. The force needed to dislocate was noted, and then the shoulders underwent coracoid transfer with the classical and congruent arc techniques. The average force required to dislocate the shoulder after osteotomy was 123.57 N. After classical Latarjet, the average force required was 325.71 N, compared with 327.14 N after the congruent arc technique. This was not statistically significant. In this biomechanical cadaveric study, there is no difference in the force required to dislocate a shoulder after classical and congruent arc techniques of Latarjet, suggesting that both methods are equally effective at preventing anterior dislocation in the position of abduction and external rotation.


2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (7) ◽  
pp. 1470-1478 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert C. Williams ◽  
Randal P. Morris ◽  
Marc El Beaino ◽  
Nicholas H. Maassen

2015 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 513-520 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. Barrett Payne ◽  
Matthew T. Kleiner ◽  
Michelle H. McGarry ◽  
James E. Tibone ◽  
Thay Q. Lee

2013 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 309-316 ◽  
Author(s):  
Harm W. Boons ◽  
Joshua W. Giles ◽  
Ilia Elkinson ◽  
James A. Johnson ◽  
George S. Athwal

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Zheng Zeng ◽  
Chuan Liu ◽  
Yang Liu ◽  
Yan Huang

Abstract Background Anterior shoulder dislocation remains a clinical challenge. This study aimed to assess the graft position and clinical outcomes of the arthroscopic Latarjet procedure and capsular repair for the treatment of recurrent anterior shoulder dislocation with significant glenoid bone loss in 37 patients. Methods Between 2017 and 2017, 37 patients underwent arthroscopic Latarjet plus capsular repair procedure for recurrent anterior shoulder dislocation combined with significant glenoid bone loss. In follow-up examinations, Walch-Duplay scores, subjective shoulder value (SSV) scores, Rowe scores, and active range of motion (AROM) were assessed. Three-dimensional computed tomography (CT) was used to evaluate coracoid graft position and bone resorption. A new method of evaluating the position of the coracoid bone block after Latarjet (H-Z method) was developed. Results Thirty-seven patients were included in this study. Follow-up ranged from 6 to 36 months postoperatively (with an average of 13 months). No recurrent dislocation occurred at the final follow-up, and there was no significant effect on the AROM (all p > 0.05). Rowe (from 42.2 ± 5.6 to 91.1 ± 3.3), Walch-Duplay (from 31.5 ± 8.0 to 92.6 ± 3.7), and SSV (from 63.9 ± 6.1 to 79.3% ± 5.0%) scores were improved significantly after surgery (all p < 0.001). CT showed that the 29 patients had varying degrees of bone resorption, and 23 recovered to the preinjury level of motional function within 6–12 months after surgery. Conclusions In active patients with recurrent anterior shoulder dislocations and significant glenoid bone loss, the arthroscopic Latarjet procedure plus capsular repair could restore shoulder stability satisfactory.


2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (10) ◽  
pp. 232596712110400
Author(s):  
Anthony F. De Giacomo ◽  
Young Lu ◽  
Dong Hun Suh ◽  
Michelle H. McGarry ◽  
Michael Banffy ◽  
...  

Background: In hip arthroscopy, the best capsular closure technique to prevent microinstability in some patients while preventing overconstraints in other patients has yet to be determined. Purpose: To evaluate the biomechanical effects of capsular repair, capsular shift, and combination capsular shift and capsular plication for closure of the hip capsule. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: Eight cadaveric hips (4 male and 4 female hips; mean age, 55.7 years) were evaluated in 7 conditions: intact, vented, capsulotomy, side-to-side repair, side-to-side repair with capsular plication (interval closure between iliofemoral and ischiofemoral ligaments), capsular shift repair, and capsular shift repair with plication. Measurements, via a 360° goniometer, included internal and external rotation with 1.5 N·m of torque at 5° of extension and 0°, 30°, 60°, and 90° of flexion. In addition, the degree of maximum extension with 5 N·m of torque and the amount of femoral distraction with 40 N and 80 N of force were obtained. Repeated-measures analysis of variance and Tukey post hoc analyses were used to analyze differences between capsular conditions. Results: At lower hip positions (5° of extension, 0° and 30° of flexion), there was a significant increase in external rotation and total rotation after capsulotomy versus the intact state ( P < .05). At all hip flexion angles, there was a significant increase in external rotation, internal rotation, and total rotation as well as a significant increase in maximum extension after capsulotomy versus capsular shift with plication ( P < .05 for all). At all flexion angles, both capsular closure with side-to-side repair (with or without plication) and capsular shift without capsular plication were able to restore rotation, with no significant differences compared with the intact capsule ( P > .05). Among repair constructs, there were significant differences in range of motion between side-to-side repair and combined capsular shift with plication ( P < .05). Conclusion: At all positions, significantly increased rotational motion was seen after capsulotomy. Capsular closure was able to restore rotation similar to an intact capsule. Combined capsular shift and plication may provide more restrained rotation for conditions of hip microinstability but may overconstrain hips without laxity. Clinical Relevance: More advanced closure techniques or a combination of techniques may be needed for patients with hip laxity and microinstability. At the same time, simple repair may suffice for patients without these conditions.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document