Evaluation of the inter and intraobserver reproducibility of the GRASP method: a goniometric method to measure the isolated glenohumeral range of motion in the shoulder joint.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the intra and interobserver reproducibility of a new goniometric method for evaluating the isolated passive range of motion of the glenohumeral joint in an outpatient setting. METHODS: This is a prospective observational study on healthy subjects. The Glenohumeral ROM Assessment with Scapular Pinch (GRASP) method is a new method for assessing the isolated range of motion (ROM) of the glenohumeral joint (GH) by a single examiner with a clinical goniometer. It measures the isolated glenohumeral passive abduction (GH-AB), passive external rotation (GH-ER) and internal rotation (GH-IR) with the arm at 45º of abduction. These three GH ROM parameters were measured in both shoulders of 30 healthy volunteers (15 males/15 females, mean age:41.6[SD = 10.3] years). The full shoulder passive abduction, passive external rotation and internal rotation 45º of abduction were measured by the same examiners with a goniometer for comparison. One examiner made two evaluations and a second examiner made a third one. The primary outcome was the intra- and interobserver reproducibility of the measurements assessed with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and the Bland-Altman plot. RESULTS: The intra-observer ICC for isolated glenohumeral ROM were: 0.84 ± 0.07 for GH-ABD, 0.63 ± 0.09 for GH-ER, and 0.61 ± 0.14 for GH-IR. The inter-observer ICC for isolated glenohumeral ROM were: 0.86 ± 0.06 for GH-ABD, 0.68 ± 0.12 for GH-ER, and 0.62 ± 0.14 for GH-IR. These results were similar to those obtained for full shoulder ROM assessment with a goniometer. CONCLUSION: The GRASP method is reproducible for quick assessment of isolated glenohumeral ROM. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Instability severity index score values below 7 do not predict recurrence after arthroscopic Bankart repair.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy of the Instability Severity Index Score (ISIS) in predicting an increased recurrence risk after an arthroscopic Bankart repair. METHODS: Retrospective review of a cohort of patients operated in three different centres. The inclusion criteria (recurrent anterior instability [dislocation or subluxation] with or without hyperlaxity, arthroscopic Bankart repair) and the exclusion criteria (concomitant rotator cuff lesion, acute first-time dislocation, surgery after a previous anterior stabilization, surgery for an unstable shoulder without true dislocation or subluxation; multidirectional instability) were those used in the study that defined the ISIS score. The medical records and a telephone interview were used to identify the six variables that define the ISIS and identify recurrences. RESULTS: One hundred and sixty-three shoulders met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Of these, 140 subjects (22 females/118 males; mean age 35.5 ± 7.9) with 142 (89.0%) shoulders were available for follow-up after 5.3 (1.1) (range 3.1-7.4) years. There were 20 recurrences (14.1%). The mean (SD) preoperative ISIS was 1.8 (1.6) in the patients without recurrence and 1.8 (1.9) in the patients with recurrence (n.s.). In the 117 subjects with ISIS between 0 and 3 the recurrence rate was 12.8%; in the 25 with ISIS 4 to 6 the rate was 20% (n.s.). CONCLUSION: For subjects with anterior shoulder instability in which an arthroscopic Bankart repair is being considered, the use of the ISIS, when the values obtained are ≤ 6 was not useful to predict an increased recurrence risk in the midterm in this retrospectively evaluated case series. The efficacy of the ISIS score in defining a group of subjects with a preoperative increased risk of recurrence after an arthroscopic Bankart instability repair is limited in lower risk populations (with ISIS scores ≤ 6). LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Retrospective case series, Level IV.

Multidirectional Instability: Natural History and Evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Multidirectional instability (MDI) represents a great challenge to the orthopedic surgeon. When treating these patients we must be aware that instability refers to a symptomatic situation, thus multidirectional instability is defined as symptomatic involuntary instability in two or more directions, and should be clearly differentiated from asymptomatic hyperlaxity. It may be associated with hyperlaxity, either congenital or acquired following repetitive stress, but also may be present without hyperlaxity, which is rare. METHODS: We searched in the online data bases and reviewed the relevant published literature available. RESULTS: Many differences can be seen in the current literature when identifying these patients, unclear definitions and criteria to be included in this patient group are common. CONCLUSION: Understanding the complex shoulder biomechanics as well as being aware of the typical clinical features and the key examination signs, which we review in this article, is of paramount importance in order to identify and classify these patients, allowing the best treatment option to be offered to each patient.