How to Fashion the Bone Block for Reconstruction of the Glenoid in Anterior and Posterior Instability

Abstract

Background: Glenoid restoration techniques to address glenohumeral instability–induced anterior and posterior glenoid bone loss (AGBL and PGBL) often require reconstruction, but best-fit bone block (BFBB) modeling has not been developed. Purpose: To provide glenoid bony reconstruction models for anterior and posterior instability of the shoulder using a bone loss instability cohort with high-fidelity 3-dimensional (3D) imaging. Study Design: Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: We reviewed consecutive patients indicated for operative stabilization who had posterior glenohumeral instability and suspected GBL who underwent 2-dimensional (2D) computed tomography (CT). Patients were matched by sex, laterality, and age to patients who underwent operative stabilization of anterior glenohumeral instability. Mimics software was used to convert all 2D CT scans into 3D models of the scapula. A BFBB model was designed to digitally reconstruct GBL and was used to predict the amount, anatomic configuration, and fixation configuration of bony reconstruction required in AGBL and PGBL. Results: The study included 30 patients with posterior instability and 30 patients with anterior instability; the participants’ mean ± SD age was 28.8 ± 8.15 years (range, 16.0-51.0 years). Mean surface area of AGBL was 24.9% ± 7.7% (range, 14.7%-39.1%). Mean BFBB dimensions to reconstruct the anterior glenoid were determined to be a superior-inferior length of 23.9 ± 4.2 mm, anterior-posterior width of 6.4 ± 2.4 mm, and height of 1 cm. Mean angle of AGBL bone block interface relative to glenoid to reconstruct the native concavity was 79.4°± 5.9°. For PGBL, the mean surface area was 9.2% ± 5.6% (range, 3.0%-26.3%). Mean BFBB dimensions to reconstruct the posterior glenoid were a superior-inferior length of 21.9 ± 3.4 mm, width of 4.5 ± 2.3 mm, and height of 1 cm. The mean angle of PGBL bone block interface relative to the glenoid to reconstruct the native concavity was 38.6°± 14.3°. Orientation relative to the vertical glenoid axis was 77.2°± 13.8° in anterior reconstructions versus 105.9°± 10.9° in posterior reconstructions. Conclusion: Patients with anterior instability required a more rectangular BFBB with a bone block–glenoid interface angle of 79°, whereas patients with posterior instability required a more trapezoidal, obtusely oriented BFBB with a bone block–glenoid interface angle of 39°. BFBBs for either AGBL or PGBL can be effectively designed, and their size and/or shape can be predicted based on approximate percentage of GBL.