The biomechanical effect of injury and repair of the inferior glenohumeral ligament on glenohumeral stability: Contribution of the posterior band.

BACKGROUND: Many surgical procedures are proposed to manage shoulder instability with recurrent dislocation but there is still a high rate of failure or complications. Repairs are often limited to anterior part of inferior glenohumeral ligament but some authors are reporting better clinical results if its posterior band is also repaired. This biomechanical study aimed to investigate the impact of a supplementary posterior injury compared with an isolated anterior injury and to analyze the contribution of a posterior repair of the inferior glenohumeral ligament compared with an isolated anterior repair. METHODS: Six fresh-frozen cadaveric shoulders were tested intact and after both anterior and posterior injuries and repairs of the inferior glenohumeral ligament. Shoulders were placed at 90° of humerothoracic elevation in scapular plane and 60° of external rotation. Joint stability was analyzed by successively applying anterior, posterior, inferior and superior glenohumeral displacements and measuring the resulting forces or by applying an anteroinferior loading and measuring three-dimensional head displacements. Maximal range of external rotation was also measured. FINDINGS: Combined anterior and posterior injuries of the inferior glenohumeral ligament were necessary to obtain significant instabilities in anterior and inferior directions. A complementary repair of the posterior band improved the biomechanical stability of the glenohumeral joint compared to an isolated anterior repair when anterior and posterior bands are injured. No reduction of external rotation was observed after repairs compared to intact condition. INTERPRETATION: These results show the biomechanical interest of this surgical procedure and contribute to document its relevance in clinical practice.

Arthroscopy training in France: A resident perception and self-assessment.

BACKGROUND: Arthroscopic surgery is a steadily expanding component of orthopaedic practice that changes continuously as new techniques and indications develop. The many arthroscopy training activities offered to residents include fellowships, practice on cadaver specimens and simulators, and teaching in the operating room. Current practices for arthroscopy training of orthopaedic residents in France have not yet been evaluated. The objectives of this study were to describe current arthroscopy training practices and to assess the perceptions and expectations of residents and junior physicians in France, in order to contribute to the development of a new training strategy for residents. HYPOTHESIS: Residents and junior physicians perceive gaps in their arthroscopy training. METHODS: Between November 2018 and February 2019, the Junior French Arthroscopy Society (Société Francophone d'Arthroscopie Junior, SFAJ) conducted a descriptive epidemiological survey of 918 residents, clinical fellows, and junior physicians in orthopaedic surgery departments in France. The data were collected via an online questionnaire sent by e-mail. The questionnaire had items on demographics; perceptions of, and expectations about, arthroscopy skills training during the residency; and experience in performing arthroscopic procedures. RESULTS: Of the 918 residents, 106 responded to the questionnaire. Most respondents were near the end of their training: 26 (24.8%) were 4th-year residents, 23 (21.6%) were 5th-year residents, 15 (14.3%) were clinical fellows, and 13 (12.4%) were junior physicians. Among respondents, 42 (40%) had performed fewer than 5 simple arthroscopy procedures as the main operator and 73 (69.5%) felt they were not, or would not be, capable of performing arthroscopic procedures without supervision by the end of their residency. CONCLUSION: The survey findings highlighted the challenges encountered by French orthopaedics residents in acquiring satisfactory arthroscopy skills during their residency. They also suggested avenues for improvement such as simulator training or the development of training on cadaver specimens. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV, descriptive survey.