Percentage Of Glenoid Bone Loss Research Articles

Evaluation of glenoid morphology and bony Bankart lesion in shoulders with traumatic anterior instability using zero echo time magnetic resonance imaging

BackgroundPreoperative computed tomography (CT) evaluation of bone morphometry aids in determining treatment strategies for shoulder instability. The use of zero echo time (ZTE) sequence in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), a new bone cortex imaging technique, may help reduce radiation exposure and medical costs. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the glenoid morphology and detect the presence of bony Bankart lesion using ZTE MRI in shoulders with anterior instability and compare its diagnostic accuracy with that of CT. MethodsThirty-six patients (36 shoulders) with anterior instability who underwent preoperative CT and MRI examinations between April 2019 and October 2021 were retrospectively analyzed. The percentages of glenoid bone defects on three-dimensional (3D) CT and ZTE images were determined, and the correlation between these percentages was evaluated. The number of cases with bony Bankart lesion on CT and two types of ZTE (3D and CT-like) images was determined, and the diagnostic accuracy of ZTE for detecting bony Bankart lesion was assessed, with CT as the gold standard. Patients with bony Bankart lesion on CT images were divided into two groups based on whether the lesion was detectable on 3D ZTE or CT-like images. The longer diameters of bony Bankart lesion were compared between the groups. ResultsThe median percentage of glenoid bone loss was 12.1% (range, 1.3%–45.9%) and 12.3% (range, 0%–46.6%) on 3D CT and 3D ZTE images, respectively. The Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient was 0.89. Bony Bankart lesion was detected in 18, 13, and eight shoulders of the 36 patients on CT, 3D ZTE, and CT-like images, respectively. The overall diagnostic accuracy of the CT-like and 3D ZTE images for detecting bony Bankart lesion was 86.1% and 72.2%, respectively. A significant difference was observed between the groups with and without bony Bankart lesion on CT-like images in terms of the long diameter of the bone fragments on CT (p < 0.01). ConclusionsZTE MRI demonstrated high reproducibility for the evaluation of glenoid bone defect in shoulders with anterior instability. Although no significant difference in the measurement was observed compared with that on CT, the ability of ZTE MRI to delineate bone Bankart lesion remains limited.

Arthroscopic Bankart with remplissage results in lower rates of recurrent instability with similar range of motion compared to isolated arthroscopic Bankart for anterior glenohumeral instability: Asystematic review and meta-analysis.

The addition of the remplissage procedure to an arthroscopic Bankart procedure has been shown to improve clinical outcomes, yet at the expense of potentially decreasing shoulder range of motion. The purpose of this study was to assess recurrent instability, range of motion, functional outcomesand rates of return to sport outcomes in patients undergoing an isolated arthroscopic Bankart repair compared to those undergoing arthroscopic Bankart repair in addition to the remplissage procedure. According to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, a search was conducted using threedatabases (MEDLINE/OVID, EMBASEand PubMed). Retrieved studies were screened based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria for comparative studies. Data were extracted and meta-analysis performed using a random-effects model. A total of 16 studies (13 level III studies, 2 level II studiesand 1 level I) were included with a total of 507 and 704 patients in the Bankart plus remplissage and isolated Bankart repair groups, respectively. No studies reported glenoid bone loss of >20% with the least percentage of glenoid bone loss reported amongstudies being <1%. There was a significantly increased rate of recurrent dislocations (odds ratio [OR] = 4.22, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.380-7.48, p < 0.00001) and revision procedures (OR = 3.36, 95% CI: 1.52-7.41, p = 0.003) in the isolated Bankart repair group compared to the Bankart plus remplissage group. Additionally, there were no significant differences between groups in terms of external rotation at side (n.s.), in abduction (n.s.)or at forward flexion (n.s.) at final follow-up. Furthermore, return to preinjury level of sport favoured the Bankart plus remplissage group (OR = 0.54, 95% CI: 0.35-0.85, p = 0.007). Patients undergoing arthroscopic Bankart plus remplissage for anterior shoulder instability have lower rates of recurrent instability, higher rates of return to sport, and no significant difference in range of motion at final follow-up when compared to an isolated arthroscopic Bankart repair. Further large, prospective studies are needed to further determine which patients and degree of bone loss would benefit most from augmentation with the remplissage procedure. Level III.

Assessment of glenoid bone loss and other osseous shoulder pathologies comparing MR-based CT-like images with conventional CT

ObjectivesTo evaluate and compare the diagnostic performance of CT-like images based on a 3D T1-weighted spoiled gradient-echo sequence (T1 GRE), an ultra-short echo time sequence (UTE), and a 3D T1-weighted spoiled multi-echo gradient-echo sequence (FRACTURE) with conventional CT in patients with suspected osseous shoulder pathologies.Materials and methodsPatients with suspected traumatic dislocation of the shoulder (n = 46, mean age 40 ± 14.5 years, 19 women) were prospectively recruited and received 3-T MR imaging including 3D T1 GRE, UTE, and 3D FRACTURE sequences. CT was performed in patients with acute fractures and served as standard of reference (n = 25). Agreement of morphological features between the modalities was analyzed including the glenoid bone loss, Hill-Sachs interval, glenoid track, and the anterior straight-line length. Agreement between the modalities was assessed using Bland-Altman plots, Student’s t-test, and Pearson’s correlation coefficient. Inter- and intrareader assessment was evaluated with weighted Cohen’s κ and intraclass correlation coefficient.ResultsAll osseous pathologies were detected accurately on all three CT-like sequences (n = 25, κ = 1.00). No significant difference in the percentage of glenoid bone loss was found between CT (mean ± standard deviation, 20.3% ± 8.0) and CT-like MR images (FRACTURE 20.6% ± 7.9, T1 GRE 20.4% ± 7.6, UTE 20.3% ± 7.7, p > 0.05). When comparing the different measurements on CT-like images, measurements performed using the UTE images correlated best with CT.ConclusionAssessment of bony Bankart lesions and other osseous pathologies was feasible and accurate using CT-like images based on 3-T MRI compared with conventional CT. Compared to the T1 GRE and FRACTURE sequence, the UTE measurements correlated best with CT.Clinical relevance statementIn an acute trauma setting, CT-like images based on a T1 GRE, UTE, or FRACTURE sequence might be a useful alternative to conventional CT scan sparing associated costs as well as radiation exposure.Key Points• No significant differences were found for the assessment of the glenoid bone loss when comparing measurements of CT-like MR images with measurements of conventional CT images.• Compared to the T1 GRE and FRACTURE sequence, the UTE measurements correlated best with CT whereas the FRACTURE sequence appeared to be the most robust regarding motion artifacts.• The T1 GRE sequence had the highest resolution with high bone contrast and detailed delineation of even small fractures but was more susceptible to motion artifacts.

Contribution of the Bony Bankart in Calculating Glenoid Bone Loss.

Determining the magnitude of glenoid bone loss in patients with anterior shoulder instability is an important step in guiding management. Most calculations to estimate the bone loss do not include the bony Bankart fragment. However, if it can be reduced and adequately fixed, the estimation of bone loss may be decreased. To derive a simple equation to calculate the surface area of the bony fragment in Bankart fractures. Case series; Level of evidence, 4. A total of 26 patients suspected of having clinically significant bone loss underwent computed tomography imaging preoperatively, and the percentage of glenoid bone loss (%BL) was approximated with imaging software using a freehand region of interest area measurement with and without the inclusion of the bony Bankart fragment. By assuming this bony fragment as a hemi-ellipse with height, H, and thickness, d, we represented the surface are of the bony piece (), and subtracted it from the overall %BL. They compared this value with the one found using imaging software. Without the inclusion of the bony Bankart, the overall %BL by the standard true-fit circle measured using imaging software was 23.8% ± 9.7%. When including the bony Bankart, the glenoid %BL measured using imaging software was found to be 12.1% ± 8.5%. The %BL calculated by our equation with the bony Bankart included was 10% ± 11.1%. There was no statistically significant difference between the %BL values measured using the equation and the imaging software (P = .46). Using a simple equation that approximates the bony Bankart fragment as a hemiellipse allowed for estimation of the glenoid bone loss, assuming that the fragment can be reduced and adequately fixed. This method may serve as a helpful tool in preoperative planning when there are considerations for incorporating the bony fragment in the repair.

The relationship of glenoid version and severity of glenoid bone loss in anterior shoulder instability patients: A retrospective cohort study

Background/objectiveThe effect of glenoid version on the severity of glenoid bone loss is not completely understood, although the variation of glenoid version angles is considered to reflect the degree of glenoid bone loss in anterior shoulder instability cases. The objective of this retrospective case-control study is to determine the relationship of the glenoid version and the severity of glenoid bone loss in a group of previously documented recurrent anterior shoulder dislocation patients. MethodsWe retrospectively collected magnetic resonance arthrogram (MRA) data from 72 patients with unidirectional recurrent anterior shoulder instability. The best-fit circle method was used to identify the percentage of glenoid bone loss. Measurements of glenoid labral, chondral, and bony versions were performed using the Friedman method. ResultsUsing univariate regression analysis, it was found that a retroversion angle of more than 4 degrees was associated with an increased risk ratio for the occurrence of a critical glenoid defect by approximately 5 times. Conclusions24 Univariate logistic regression analysis, used to determine the presence of a critical glenoid bone defect, showed that both the bony version angle and the number of previous dislocations were significantly associated with the extent of glenoid bone loss. A retroversion angle of more than 4 degrees was associated with an approximately five-fold increase in the odds ratio for the presence of a critical glenoid defect. Surgeons may use the value of the measured glenoid version in prediction the required version of the reconstructive treatment.

Anterior and posterior glenoid bone loss in patients receiving surgery for glenohumeral instability is not the same: a comparative 3-dimensional imaging analysis.

BackgroundAnterior and posterior glenoid bone loss morphology have both been individually and morphologically described in previous studies. While there exists substantial literature on anterior bone loss, and emerging evidence describing posterior bone loss, a direct comparison between the two is lacking in the current literature. The purpose of this study is to quantitatively compare the anatomic and morphological differences in glenoid bone loss (GBL) in operative patients with anterior versus posterior glenohumeral instability.MethodsAll patients over a 3-year period indicated for operative stabilization with posterior glenohumeral instability and suspected glenoid bone loss who underwent a computed tomography (CT) scan were reviewed. Included patients were then singularly matched by gender, laterality, and age (±3 years) to a collection of patients who presented for operative stabilization of anterior glenohumeral instability. GBL parameters were assessed based on the following characterizing measurements: (1) percentage of GBL, (2) glenoid vault version, (3) slope of the glenoid defect relative to the glenoid surface, (4) superior-inferior defect height, and (5) anterior-posterior defect width.ResultsSixty patients (30 anterior GBL, 30 posterior GBL) were included in the final analysis (60 males), with a mean age of 28.8 ± 8.15 years (range 16.0 to 51.0 years). Patients with anterior instability presented with higher GBL (24.94% ± 7.69 vs. 9.22% ± 5.58, P < .001), greater superior-inferior defect height (23.89 ± 4.21 mm vs. 21.88 ± 3.42 mm, P = .047), and steeper slope of glenoid defect (58.80° ± 11.86 vs. 38.59° ± 14.30, P < .001), while patients with posterior instability had greater retroversion (1.53° ± 4.04 vs. 7.59° ± 7.71, P < .001). Additionally, the anterior instability cohort had significantly more patients with moderate- to high-grade glenoid bone loss (n = 30) than patients with posterior instability (n = 11) (P < .001).ConclusionAnterior instability presents with a steeper slope of glenoid defect, higher percentage GBL, and greater superior-inferior defect height, whereas posterior instability presents with greater retroversion. This underscores the finding that anterior and posterior instability bone loss are not the same morphologically, and this should be considered in the operative treatment of glenohumeral instability.

Comparison of the Coracoid, Distal Clavicle, and Scapular Spine for Autograft Augmentation of Glenoid Bone Loss: A Radiologic and Cadaveric Assessment

Background: Glenohumeral instability caused by bone loss requires adequate bony restoration for successful surgical stabilization. Coracoid transfer has been the gold standard bone graft; however, it has high complication rates. Alternative autologous free bone grafts, which include the distal clavicle and scapular spine, have been suggested. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine the percentage of glenoid bone loss (GBL) restored via coracoid, distal clavicle, and scapular spine bone grafts using a patient cohort and a cadaveric evaluation. Methods: Autologous bone graft dimensions from a traditional Latarjet, congruent arc Latarjet, distal clavicle, and scapular spine were measured in a 2-part study using 52 computed tomography (CT) scans and 10 unmatched cadaveric specimens. The amount of GBL restored using each graft was calculated by comparing the graft thickness with the glenoid diameter. Results: Using CT measurements, we found the mean percentage of glenoid restoration for each graft was 49.5% ± 6.7% (traditional Latarjet), 45.1% ± 4.9% (congruent arc Latarjet), 42.2% ± 7.7% (distal clavicle), and 26.2% ± 8.1% (scapular spine). Using cadaveric measurements, we found the mean percentage of glenoid restoration for each graft was 40.2% ± 5.0% (traditional Latarjet), 53.4% ± 4.7% (congruent arc Latarjet), 45.6% ± 8.4% (distal clavicle), and 28.2% ± 7.7% (scapular spine). With 10% GBL, 100% of the coracoid and distal clavicle grafts, as well as 88% of scapular spine grafts, could restore the defect (P < .001). With 20% GBL, 100% of the coracoid and distal clavicle grafts but only 66% of scapular spine grafts could restore the defect (P < .001). With 30% GBL, 100% of coracoid grafts, 98% of distal clavicle grafts, and 28% of scapular spine grafts could restore the defect (P < .001). With 40% GBL, a significant difference was identified (P = .001), as most coracoid grafts still provided adequate restoration (congruent arc Latarjet, 82.7%; traditional Latarjet, 76.9%), but distal clavicle grafts were markedly reduced, with only 51.9% of grafts maintaining sufficient dimensions. Conclusions: The coracoid and distal clavicle grafts reliably restored up to 30% GBL in nearly all patients. The coracoid was the only graft that could reliably restore up to 40% GBL. Clinical Relevance: With “subcritical” GBL (>13.5%), all autologous bone grafts can be used to adequately restore the bony defect. However, with “critical” GBL (≥20%), only the coracoid and distal clavicle can reliably restore the bony defect.

Defining Critical Glenoid Bone Loss in Posterior Shoulder Capsulolabral Repair

Background: Although critical bone loss for anterior instability is well defined, a clinically significant threshold of posterior bone loss has not been elucidated. Hypothesis: Patients with failed arthroscopic posterior shoulder capsulolabral repair will have increased posterior glenoid bone loss with a defined critical threshold. Study Design: Case control study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Athletes older than 18 years with unidirectional posterior instability treated with arthroscopic repair were evaluated at 2-year minimum follow-up. Failure was defined as revision surgery, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score of <60, or subjective stability score of >5. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) measurements from 19 patients with failed arthroscopic posterior shoulder capsulolabral repair were compared with 56 patients whose surgery was successful. MRI measures included glenoid version, labral version, glenoid width, labral width, percentage bone loss using the circle technique, labral height, percent subluxation, and recently described measures of defect slope, bone loss angle, and defect length. The P value threshold was set at .05, and a multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed for evaluation of risk of surgical failure. Results: Smaller glenoid width and greater percentage glenoid bone loss (25.5 ± 0.68 mm vs 28.8 ± 0.47 mm; P < .001; 6.8% ± 0.64% vs 4.6% ± 0.43%; P = .008) were seen in those patients with failed surgery. There was no difference in glenoid version or other measurements between the failures and nonfailures. A cutoff of 11% glenoid bone loss resulted in a 10.4 times statistically higher surgical failure rate, while a 15% bone loss resulted in a 24.4 times statistically higher failure rate. Six patients had >11% bone loss (range, 11.1 to 19.3) and 1 patient had >15% bone loss. Conclusion: Risk factors for failure of arthroscopic posterior shoulder capsulolabral repair include smaller glenoid bone width and greater percentage of glenoid bone loss. A threshold of 11% posterior glenoid bone loss implicated a 10 times higher surgical failure rate, while a threshold of 15% led to a 25 times higher surgical failure rate. Surgical failure of posterior capsulolabral repair, however, is relatively rare as it is an overall successful intervention.

Glenoid version is associated with different labrum tear patterns in shoulder instability

Previous studies have evaluated glenoid version as a risk factor for anterior and posterior shoulder instability. However, the association of glenoid version with combined anterior-inferior-posterior (>180°) labrum injuries is unknown. The purpose of the present study was to investigate various parameters of glenoid morphology, including version, in >180° labral tears and to compare these values with isolated anterior and isolated posterior tears. Magnetic resonance imaging studies from a consecutive series of shoulder instability patients were reviewed by 3 independent observers to measure the parameters of glenoid morphology including superior-inferior and anterior-posterior diameter, diameter ratio, glenoid version using the glenoid vault method, and percentage of glenoid bone loss using the best-fit circle method. These parameters were compared between patients with anterior (group 1), posterior (group 2), and >180° labral tears (group 3). Interobserver reliability coefficients were calculated for all measurements assessed. There were statistically significant differences for all group comparisons regarding the glenoid version, with group 2 having the most retroversion (19.9° ± 4.71°) followed by group 3 (14.21° ± 4.59°) and group 1 (11.24° ± 5.3°). Group 3 showed the lowest amount of glenoid bone loss; however, the group differences did not reach statistical significance. There was also no statistically significant group difference for the other measured parameters. Interobserver reliability was in the good to excellent range for all measurements. Combined anterior-inferior-posterior labral tears are associated with an increased amount of glenoid retroversion compared with isolated anterior labral tears. Isolated posterior labral tears have the largest amount of glenoid retroversion of all tear patterns.

How to handle minor and major bone loss in the shoulder? Current concepts

Anterior shoulder instability is a significant problem in orthopaedic surgery. It carries a heavy burden on quality of life, especially in young, active patients. Surgical treatment is therefore often carried out in this population. Several strategies can effectively address this issue. Yet, the consensus is lacking on the parameters which favour one technique over another, especially when bone loss is present. This is because of the complex, dynamic interplay between bone loss on the humeral side (ie, Hill-Sachs lesion) and glenoid bone loss, which is a common occurrence and defined as ‘bipolar’. There is an ongoing debate over the percentage of glenoid bone loss warranting bone block procedures: 13.5–15% is an indicator for such procedures (ie, Latarjet), although this value is still considered controversial and not uniformly accepted. A multitude of other factors (ie, age, sex, level of activity and so on) come into play alongside bipolar bone loss and the weight of each factor has yet to be fully elucidated. Also, refining the algorithm for the right procedure in the right patients will reduce the number of side effects stemming from initial, suboptimal treatment choice. Knowing how to manage previous surgical treatment failure is also key for the treating orthopaedic surgeon, who must be able to address the root cause of failure and react accordingly and effectively. This paper analyses key factors in treatment choice, the current stance of the literature on varying degrees of bone loss and choices on surgical treatment failure, lack of evidence and need for future research.

The role of bone in glenohumeral stability.

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

Clinical Outcomes Following the Latarjet Procedure in Contact and Collision Athletes.

Few studies have evaluated the success of the Latarjet procedure for recurrent anterior glenohumeral instability in the contact or collision athlete. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the return-to-sport and functional results of the Latarjet procedure in this select group. One hundred and nine consecutive contact or collision athletes (112 shoulders) treated with an open Latarjet procedure for recurrent anterior glenohumeral instability were retrospectively identified. Seventy-three shoulders in 73 patients (67%) were evaluated at a mean follow-up of 52 months (range, 24 to 120 months). The average age at surgery was 25.8 years (range, 15 to 54 years). The primary outcomes were the scores on the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI), the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) questionnaire, a visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, and return to sport. Predictors of return to sport were analyzed. Six (8%) of the 73 patients experienced ≥1 postoperative dislocations. Ten additional patients (14%) experienced a perception of instability without a dislocation. The median postoperative WOSI and ASES scores were 382 (range, 0 to 2,016) and 93.3 (range, 21.7 to 100), respectively. The median postoperative VAS pain score was 0 (range, 0 to 10). Forty-nine percent (36) of the 73 patients returned to their preoperative sports level, 14% (10) decreased their activity level in the same sport, 12% (9) changed sports, and 25% (18) decreased their level of activity and changed sports or stopped participating in sports altogether. Patients with ≥2 stabilization procedures prior to the Latarjet procedure demonstrated a lower likelihood of returning to their original sport (p = 0.019; relative risk = 2.84; 95% confidence interval = 1.34 to 6.06). The percentage of glenoid bone loss showed no association with the return-to-sport rate (p = 0.507). The outcome of the Latarjet procedure in high-risk contact or collision athletes is variable. Patients who have fewer prior stabilization surgical procedures are more likely to successfully return to their original sport. Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

The Mini-Open Modified Bristow-Latarjet Procedure for Anterior Shoulder Instability: A 15-Year Study on the Results of 90 Cases

The described procedure is a reproducible and effective technique used to restore joint stability in patients who have incurred anterior recurrent shoulder dislocation. This study presents the middle time results of Modified Bristow–Latarjet consisting of the association of 2 procedures, the congruent glenoid reconstruction with two headless screws fixtion of the standing coracoid and the rotator interval approach ensuring the intactness of subscapularis muscle in the treatment of traumatic anterior shoulder instability. Ninety patients were enrolled in this retrospective case-series study with 2 to 15 years’ follow-up. Preoperatively and postoperatively all patients underwent a computed tomography scan to assess the percentage of glenoid bone loss and the glenoid cavity reconstruction respectively. The rate of recurrent of shoulder instability, Glenohumeral osteoarthritis,bone-healing, bone position and loss of external motion was evaluated. Rowe, ASES (American-Shoulder-Elbow-Surgeons), Constant-Murley, and DASH scores, were used to assess the shoulder function. The mean length of follow-up was 5.6 years (range, 2-15 years). None patients had shoulder redislocation and none reported shoulder indisability. All patients get bone-union in 6 months. The arthropathy of the shoulder, 82(92%)were classified as normal, 6(6%) as mild, 2(2%)as moderate, and none as severe according to Samilson-Prieto classification. The mean loss of external rotation was 11.6°(95%CI, 9.9-13.2) with the arm at the side of the body, and the mean deficit was 12.4°(95%CI, 10.8-14.0) with the arm on abduction 90°. The Rowe, ASES, Constant-Murley and DASH scores showed significant improvements(p<0.001): The Rowe score increased from 45.6 to 92.6, the ASES score increased from 62.0 to 93.9, the Constant-Murley score increase from 58.2 to 90.8,and the DASH score deceased from 15.9 to 5.0. The described procedure is a reproducible and effective technique used to restore joint stability in patients who have incurred anterior recurrent shoulder dislocation.

Tomographic evaluation of Hill-Sachs lesions: is there a correlation between different methods of measurement?

Several methods are currently available to evaluate and quantify the glenoid or humeral bone loss; however, none is universally accepted, particularly in the case of Hill-Sachs (HS) lesions. To establish whether there is correlation among different methods of measuring HS lesions, and to investigate the correlation between glenoid bone loss and the various HS lesion measurements and to assess the inter-observer reliability of such measurements. We assessed computed tomography (CT) or arthro-CT scans taken from individuals with recurrent anterior glenohumeral dislocation. The scans were independently assessed by two examiners. The parameters assessed were as follows: HS lesion width and depth on the axial and coronal planes, articular arc loss on the axial plane, and percentage of glenoid bone loss on the sagittal plane. Scans from 50 shoulders were assessed. The percentage of articular arc loss and HS lesion width on the axial plane were the only measurements that exhibited strong correlation (r = 0.83; P < 0.001). The values of the correlation coefficient corresponding to HS lesion depth on the coronal plane were the lowest. Most of the measurements exhibited moderate correlation. The inter-examiner reliability was good relative to all measurements except for HS lesion width and depth on the coronal plane, for which it was moderate. The measurements of articular arc loss and HS lesion width on the axial plane exhibited strong correlation. The inter-examiner reliability relative to articular arc loss, HS lesion width and depth on the axial plane, and glenoid bone loss was good.

Arthroscopic Subscapularis Augmentation of Bankart Repair in Chronic Anterior Shoulder Instability With Bone Loss: Clinical Multicenter Study

The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes of a new arthroscopic procedure consisting of a tenodesis of the upper third of the subscapularis and a Bankart repair in chronic anterior shoulder instability with bone loss. This is a retrospective, multicenter case series study. One hundred ten patients practicing sports, who underwent arthroscopic subscapularis augmentation (ASA) of Bankart repair in chronic anterior shoulder instability with a mean follow-up of 40.5 months (range: 24 to 65 months) were enrolled for this study. The patients were operated by four different surgeons and functional outcomes were evaluated by independent observers. Preoperatively all patients underwent CT scan Pico area method to assess the percentage of glenoid bone loss (GBL). Exclusion criteria included a GBL >25%. In all patients a Hill-Sachs lesion was observed. In 24 patients a prior stabilization procedure had failed. VAS scale, Rowe score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) scores were used to assess results. No specific complications related to this procedure occurred. Three patients (2.7%), but none of 24 with failure of prior stabilization procedure, had a post-traumatic re-dislocation. At final follow-up, the mean scores were as follows: VAS scale significantly decreased from a mean of 3.5 to 0.5 (P= .015), Rowe score significantly raised from 57.4 to 95.3 (P= .035), ASES score significantly raised from 66.5 to 96.5 (P= .021). The mean deficit of external rotation was 8° with the arm in R1 position, and 4° with the arm in R2 position. This procedure has been demonstrated safe and effective to restore joint stability in patients practicing sports, affected by chronic anterior shoulder instability associated with anterior glenoid bone loss (<25%) and engaging Hill-Sachs lesions. Level of evidence: IV, case series, treatment study.

Arthroscopic Bankart repair and subscapularis augmentation: an alternative technique treating anterior shoulder instability with bone loss

This study presents the preliminary results of a new arthroscopic technique consisting of the association of 2 procedures, capsulolabral repair and subscapularis augmentation tenodesis, in the treatment of traumatic anterior shoulder instability with both glenoid bone loss and a Hill-Sachs lesion. Eighty-nine patients engaged in sports were enrolled in this retrospective case-series study with 2 to 5years' follow-up. All patients underwent a computed tomography scan to assess the percentage of glenoid bone loss by the Pico method. A prior stabilization procedure had failed in 20 patients, who were then segregated into a different group. Visual analog scale (VAS), Rowe, and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) scores were used to assess the results. Only 3 of 89 patients had a post-traumatic redislocation. The mean length of follow-up was 31.5months (range, 25-60months). The VAS, Rowe, and ASES scores showed significant improvements: The VAS score decreased from a mean of 3.1 to 0.5 (P=.0157), the Rowe score increased from 58.9 to 94.1 (P=.0215), and the ASES score increased from 68.5 to 95.5 (P=.0197). The mean deficit of external rotation was 6° with the arm at the side of the trunk, and the mean deficit was 3° with the arm in 90° of abduction. The described procedure is a reproducible and effective technique used to restore joint stability in patients engaged in sports who have incurred anterior recurrent shoulder dislocation associated with glenoid bone loss (<25%) and a Hill-Sachs lesion.

Redefining “Critical” Bone Loss in Shoulder Instability

Background: Glenoid bone loss is a common finding in association with anterior shoulder instability. This loss has been identified as a predictor of failure after operative stabilization procedures. Historically, 20% to 25% has been accepted as the “critical” cutoff where glenoid bone loss should be addressed in a primary procedure. Few data are available, however, on lesser, “subcritical” amounts of bone loss (below the 20%-25% range) on functional outcomes and failure rates after primary arthroscopic stabilization for shoulder instability. Purpose: To evaluate the effect of glenoid bone loss, especially in subcritical bone loss (below the 20%-25% range), on outcomes assessments and redislocation rates after an isolated arthroscopic Bankart repair for anterior shoulder instability. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Subjects were 72 consecutive anterior instability patients (73 shoulders) who underwent isolated anterior arthroscopic labral repair at a single military institution by 1 of 3 sports medicine fellowship-trained orthopaedic surgeons. Data were collected on demographics, the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability (WOSI) score, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) score, and failure rates. Failure was defined as recurrent dislocation. Glenoid bone loss was calculated via a standardized technique on preoperative imaging. The average bone loss across the group was calculated, and patients were divided into quartiles based on the percentage of glenoid bone loss. Outcomes were analyzed for the entire cohort, between the quartiles, and within each quartile. Outcomes were then further stratified between those sustaining a recurrence versus those who remained stable. Results: The mean age at surgery was 26.3 years (range, 20-42 years), and the mean follow-up was 48.3 months (range, 23-58 months). The cohort was divided into quartiles based on bone loss. Quartile 1 (n = 18) had a mean bone loss of 2.8% (range, 0%-7.1%), quartile 2 (n = 19) had 10.4% (range, 7.3%-13.5%), quartile 3 (n = 18) had 16.1% (range, 13.5%-19.8%), and quartile 4 (n = 18) had 24.5% (range, 20.0%-35.5%). The overall mean WOSI score was 756.8 (range, 0-2097). The mean WOSI score correlated with SANE scores and worsened as bone loss increased in each quartile. There were significant differences (P < .05) between quartile 1 (mean WOSI/SANE, 383.3/62.1) and quartile 2 (mean, 594.0/65.2), between quartile 2 and quartile 3 (mean, 839.5/52.0), and between quartile 3 and quartile 4 (mean, 1187.6/46.1). Additionally, between quartiles 2 and 3 (bone loss, 13.5%), the WOSI score increased to rates consistent with a poor clinical outcome. There was an overall failure rate of 12.3%. The percentage of glenoid bone loss was significantly higher among those repairs that failed versus those that remained stable (24.7% vs 12.8%, P < .01). There was no significant difference in failure rate between quartiles 1, 2, and 3, but there was a significant increase in failure (P < .05) between quartiles 1, 2, and 3 (7.3%) when compared with quartile 4 (27.8%). Notably, even when only those patients who did not sustain a recurrent dislocation were compared, bone loss was predictive of outcome as assessed by the WOSI score, with each quartile’s increasing bone loss predictive of a worse functional outcome. Conclusion: While critical bone loss has yet to be defined for arthroscopic Bankart reconstruction, our data indicate that “critical” bone loss should be lower than the 20% to 25% threshold often cited. In our population with a high level of mandatory activity, bone loss above 13.5% led to a clinically significant decrease in WOSI scores consistent with an unacceptable outcome, even in patients who did not sustain a recurrence of their instability.

Classifying GBL: Severity And Attrition. Is There Enough Bone To Reconstruct The Glenoid?

Objectives:Glenoid bone loss (GBL) continues to be a challenge in the management of recurrent anterior shoulder instability. Although the location of and percentage of GBL has been described, there is little information on how much bone is left to reconstruct the glenoid. Thus, the objective of this study is to describe a new GBL classification system that accounts for type of bone defect, amount of attritional loss, and correlate this to age, total time of instability and number of instability events.Methods:A total of 140 patients with recurrent anterior instability underwent an analysis of computed tomography (CT) three-dimensional imaging to assess GBL. The glenoid bone fragment was digitally analyzed (Osirix, Adobe) to qualitatively and quantitatively stratifyeach patient based upon attrition into- Type I “minimal atrittional” (no attrition -33%), Type II “partial attritional” (34 - 66%), and Type III “severe attritional” (67% - complete attrition). Additionally, demographic variables of age, total time of instability, and number of instability events were correlated to type of bone loss.Results:Patients had a mean age of 30.6 (range: 20 - 54) with a demonstrated mean GBL of 16.5% (range 5.1 - 62.3). Furthermore, the mean size of the remaining glenoid bone fragment was 27.8% of the full fragment size. Of 140 participants, 12 had attritional bone loss classified as Type I (12/140 = 8.6% of patients), 45 as Type II (45/140 = 32.1%), and 83 as Type III (83/140 = 59.3%). The mean percent loss for these three categories was 22.2%, 54.4%, and 88.5% respectively. Longer time of instability and more dislocations were associated with type III bone loss, and higher attrition of bone loss.Conclusion:This study highlights that GBL presents in a highly attritional nature and one should be cognizant that the remaining bone fragment does not come close to reconstituting glenoid bone stock. Patients with recurrent instability are predominantly severe attritional (Type III).

Critical Bone Loss in Shoulder Instability Reconsidered: Subcritical Bone Loss Correlates to Worse Outcome in Arthroscopic Bankart Repair

Critical Bone Loss in Shoulder Instability Reconsidered: Subcritical Bone Loss Correlates to Worse Outcome in Arthroscopic Bankart Repair

Comparison of various imaging techniques to quantify glenoid bone loss in shoulder instability

The purpose of this study was to determine the most accurate imaging modality to quantify glenoid bone loss in recurrent anterior shoulder instability. This will allow the best preoperative prediction for patients needing a bone graft. Seven fresh frozen shoulder cadavers were imaged with radiographs, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computed tomography (CT), and 3-dimensional CT (3-D CT). Native shoulders were imaged, and 3 sequential anterior-inferior glenoid defects were created, measured, and reimaged. Defect sizes were <12.5%, 12.5% to 27%, and >27%. Four blinded evaluators (2 musculoskeletal radiologists, 2 shoulder fellowship-trained surgeons) reviewed the 112 image sets and estimated the percentage of glenoid bone loss. Images were scrambled and re-reviewed by the same observers 2 months later to determine intraobserver reliability. Pearson correlation coefficients between predicted vs true bone loss across all 4 raters were 0.875 (3-D CT), 0.831 (CT), 0.693 (MRI), and 0.457 (x-ray imaging). Prediction errors (PE) were (mean ± SD in percentages) 3-D CT (-3.3 ± -6.6), CT (-3.7 ± -8.0), MRI (-2.75 ± -10.6), and x-ray images (-6.9 ± -13.1). Mean PE values were not significantly different among 3-D CT, CT, and MRI; however, the PE SDs were similar among the 4 evaluators for 3-D CT and lower than all other imaging techniques. Prediction based on x-ray images had the largest PE and SD. Covariance parameters revealed large variances for shoulders for MRI and x-ray imaging. The intraobserver intraclass correlation coefficients were 0.947 (3-D CT), 0.927 (CT), 0.837 (MRI), and 0.726 (x-ray image). The most accurate imaging modality in predicting glenoid bone loss among the 4 blinded independent evaluators was 3-D CT.