Clinical and radiographic outcomes of primary vs. revision arthroscopic anatomic glenoid reconstruction with distal tibial allograft for anterior shoulder instability with bone loss

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

PurposeThe purpose of this study was to assess the clinical and radiographic outcomes of arthroscopic anatomic glenoid reconstruction (AAGR) used for primary versus revision surgery for addressing anterior shoulder instability with bone loss. MethodsWe performed a retrospective review on consecutive patients who underwent AAGR from 2012 to 2020. Patients who received AAGR for anterior shoulder instability with bone loss and had a minimum follow-up of two-years were included. Exclusion criteria included patients with incomplete primary patient reported outcome scores (PROs), multi-directional instability, glenoid fracture, non-rigid fixation and concomitant HAGL, or rotator cuff repair. Our primary outcome was measured using the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI) scores. Secondary outcomes included postoperative Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder, Hand (DASH) scores, complications, recurrence of instability and CT evaluation of graft position, resorption, and healing. ResultsThere were 73 patients (52 primary and 21 revision) finally included. Both groups had comparable demographics and preoperative WOSI and DASH scores. The primary group had significantly better postoperative WOSI and DASH scores at final follow-up when compared to the revision group (WOSI: 21.0 vs 33.8, p=0.019; DASH: 7.3 vs 17.2, p=0.001). The primary group also showed significantly better WOSI scores than the revision group at 6-month, 1-year and 2-year time points (p=0.029, 0.022 and 0.003; respectively). The overall complication rate was 9.6% (5/52) in the primary group and 23.8% (5/21) in the revision group. Both groups showed good graft healing and placement in the A to P and ML orientation and had a similar rate of graft resorption/remodeling. There was no difference between the groups in the remainder of the CT measurements. ConclusionFunctional outcome scores and stiffness were significantly worse in patients undergoing an AAGR procedure after a failed instability surgery when compared with patients undergoing primary AAGR. There were no differences in postoperative recurrence of instability or radiographic outcomes. As a result, AAGR should be considered as a primary treatment option within current treatment algorithms for shoulder instability.