Graft Position, Healing, and Resorption in Anterior Glenohumeral Instability: A Comparison of 4 Glenoid Augmentation Techniques.

Background: The success of glenoid augmentation procedures depends on accurate placement and healing of the graft to the glenoid. Different glenoid augmentation techniques have been described, but no comparative studies between them exist. Purpose: To assess the bone graft position, healing, and resorption in a group of patients treated with 1 of 4 procedures: arthroscopic anterior bone-block procedure using either (1) fresh-frozen iliac crest allograft or (2) iliac crest autograft, (3) open Latarjet, or (4) arthroscopic Latarjet. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A total of 40 patients (87.5% men; mean age, 29.5 ± 7.9 years) were included, with 10 patients in each of the procedure groups. The graft position in the axial and sagittal planes was assessed on postoperative computed tomography (CT). Graft healing and resorption were assessed in a second CT scan performed 1 year postoperatively. Qualitative variables were compared between the 4 procedures using the chi-square test, and quantitative variables were compared with the Student t test or Mann-Whitney U test. Results: No differences were found between the procedures in the axial or sagittal position. The healing rate was significantly lower in the allograft bone-block group (20%) compared with the autograft bone-block (80%), open Latarjet (90%), and arthroscopic Latarjet (90%) groups (P < .001). Graft resorption developed in 17 of 40 (42.5%) cases overall. Osteolysis occurred in 100% of cases in the allograft bone-block group compared with 50% in the autograft group, 20% in the open Latarjet group, and 0% in the arthroscopic Latarjet group (P < .001). The glenoid surface area on 1-year CT scan was significantly lower in the allograft bone-block group compared with the autograft bone-block, open Latarjet, and arthroscopic Latarjet groups (P < .001). Conclusion: Arthroscopic bone-block, open Latarjet, and arthroscopic Latarjet procedures provided accurate bone graft positioning. However, very high rates of osteolysis and nonunion were observed in the iliac crest fresh-frozen allograft bone-block procedure when compared with the other procedures.

Short-Term Radiographic Outcomes of Bone Versus Metallic Augmented, Central Screw Type Baseplate in Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: Matched Case-Control Study.

Background: Although glenoid bone grafting and metallic augmented baseplates have demonstrated success in restoring the glenohumeral joint line in the recent literature, there remain no consensus guidelines defining the use of one versus the other. Methods: Between 2017 and 2020, 15 primary RTSA with screw-in metallically augmented glenoid baseplates were identified and 2:1 matched by age, sex, and body mass index with primary bony-augmented glenoid baseplate patients. Patients with previous glenoid implantation or fracture were excluded. Charts, routine radiographic series (Grashey, Scapula Y, Axillary lateral), and 3-dimensional computed tomography (3D CT) scans were retrospectively reviewed. Structural patient-specific metal or bony augmentation was indicated based on preoperative glenoid morphology as identified by 3D CT. Aseptic failure was identified as hardware breakage and/or shift in glenoid baseplate component position. Results: There were 45 eligible cases with mean age of 65.7 years (range 44-85 years) and 65.5 years (range 42-82 years) for the metallic-augmented and bone graft group, respectively. Correspondingly, mean follow up was 22.6 months (range 12-53 months), and 27.3 months (range 11-53 months). At latest follow up, there were no baseplate failures in the metallic augment group and 2 baseplate failures (7%) in the bone graft group at a mean of 42.5 months (range 32-53 months) postoperatively. Mean age of the bone failure group was 64.5 years (range 64-65 years). Conclusion: Contemporary reversed shoulder arthroplasty glenoid baseplate designs appear to have low incidence of failure. Further analysis is necessary to determine if a critical degree of glenoid retroversion or inclination is preferable with a specific form of augmentation. Level of Evidence: III; Retrospective Cohort Comparison.

The Use of Linear Formulas to Estimate Glenoid Bone Loss in the Lebanese Population: A 3-Dimensional Computed Tomography Study.

Background: Glenoid bone loss (GBL) is common in patients with shoulder instability and plays a major role in surgical decision-making. While a plethora of GBL estimation methods exist, all of which present specific challenges, recent studies have developed simple linear formulas estimating GBL based on glenoid height. Purpose: To assess the correlation between glenoid height and width, and to develop specific formulas based on age and sex to calculate the native glenoid width in the Lebanese population. Study Design: Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Computed tomography scans for 202 normal shoulders were extracted from our database. The glenoids were reconstructed in 3 dimensions and their width and height were measured. Glenoid width and height were compared between male and female groups. Correlation analysis was also performed on the width, height, age, and body mass index. Formulas estimating glenoid width were developed using regression analysis including all variables significantly influencing the model. Results were then compared with the values calculated using previously published formulas to determine the external validity when using linear formulas to estimate GBL. Results: Significant differences were found between men and women. Regression analysis found that glenoid height and width strongly influenced the model, and that age showed a weak but significant correlation; therefore, the following 2 sex-specific formulas were developed: width (mm) = 6.1 + 0.51 ×height+ 0.03 ×age, and width (mm) = 4.55 + 0.51 ×height+ 0.03 ×age, in men and women, respectively. The values yielded from the formulas developed in this study and the true width significantly differed from those calculated from previous reports. Conclusion: A strong correlation was found between glenoid height and width in a the Lebanese population and demonstrated that glenoid width can be accurately calculated based on the glenoid height and patient's age and sex using the following simplified formulas: width (mm) = 6 + 0.5 ×height+ 0.03 ×age, and width (mm) = 4.5 + 0.5 ×height+ 0.03 ×age, in men and women, respectively.

Arthroscopic Bankart Repair with Remplissage Yields Similar Outcomes to Open Latarjet for Primary and Revision Stabilization in The Setting of Subcritical Glenoid Bone Loss.

BACKGROUND: Management of patients with recurrent anterior glenohumeral instability in the setting of subcritical glenoid bone loss (GBL), defined in this study as 20% GBL or less, remains controversial. This study aimed to compare arthroscopic Bankart with remplissage (ABR+R) to open Latarjet for subcritical GBL in primary or revision procedures. We hypothesized that ABR+R would yield higher rates of recurrent instability and reoperation compared to Latarjet in both primary and revision settings. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted on patients undergoing either arthroscopic ABR+R or an open Latarjet procedure. Patients with connective tissue disorders, critical GBL (>20%), < 2 year follow-up, or insufficient data were excluded. Recurrent instability and revision were the primary outcomes of interest. Additional outcomes of interest included subjective shoulder value (SSV), strength and range of motion (ROM) RESULTS: 108 patients (70 ABR+R, 38 Latarjet) were included with an average follow-up of 4.3 ±2.1 years. In the primary and revision settings, similar rates of recurrent instability (Primary: p=0.60; Revision: p=0.28) and reoperation (Primary: p=0.06; Revision: p=1.00) were observed between Latarjet and ABR+R. Primary ABR+R exhibited better SSV, active ROM, and internal rotation strength compared to primary open Latarjet. However, no differences were observed in the revision setting. CONCLUSION: Similar rates of recurrent instability and reoperation in addition to comparable outcomes with no differences in ROM were found for ABR+R and Latarjet in patients with subcritical GBL in both the primary and revision settings. ABR+R can be a safe and effective procedure in appropriately selected patients with less than 20% GBL for both primary and revision stabilization.

Glenoid Concavity Affects Anterior Shoulder Stability in an Active-Assisted Biomechanical Model.

Background: The treatment of bony glenoid defects after anteroinferior shoulder dislocation currently depends on the amount of glenoid bone loss (GBL). Recent studies have described the glenoid concavity as an essential factor for glenohumeral stability. The role of glenoid concavity in the presence of soft tissue and muscle forces is still unknown. Hypothesis: Glenoid concavity would have a major impact on glenohumeral stability in an active-assisted biomechanical model including soft tissue and the rotator cuff's compression forces. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: In 8 human shoulder specimens, individual coordinate systems were calculated based on anatomic landmarks. The glenoid concavity was measured biomechanically and based on computed tomography. Static load was applied to the rotator cuff tendons and the deltoid muscle. In a robotic test setup, anteriorly directed force was applied to the humeral head until translation of 5 mm (Nant) was achieved. Nant was used as a parameter indicating shoulder stability. This was performed in the following testing stages: (1) intact joint, (2) labral lesion, (3) 10% GBL, and (4) 20% GBL. The 8 specimens were divided equally into 2 subgroups (low concavity [LC] versus high concavity [HC]), with 4 specimens each, according to the previously measured concavity. Results: Anterior glenohumeral stability was highly correlated with the native glenoid concavity (R 2 = 0.8). In the testing stages 1 to 3, we found a significantly higher mean stability in the HC subgroup compared with the LC subgroup (P≤ .0142). The HC subgroup still showed higher absolute Nant values with 20% GBL; however, there was no significant difference from the LC subgroup. The loss of stability in 20% GBL was correlated with the initial concavity (R 2 = 0.86). Thus, a higher loss of Nant in the HC subgroup was observed (P = .0049). Conclusion: In an active-assisted model with intact soft tissue surrounding and muscular compression forces, the glenoid concavity correlates with shoulder stability. In bony defects, loss of concavity is an essential factor causing instability. Due to their significantly higher native stability, glenoids with HC can tolerate a higher amount of GBL. Clinical Relevance: Glenoid concavity should be considered in an individualized treatment of bony glenoid defects. Further studies are required to establish reference values and develop therapeutic algorithms.

Latarjet procedure: biomechanical evaluation of 2-screw coracoid fixation.

BACKGROUND: Coracoid nonunion is a relevant complication following the Latarjet procedure and is influenced by multiple factors, including the method of graft fixation. The purpose of this study was to evaluate and characterize the biomechanical properties of various two-screw fixation constructs used for coracoid graft fixation in the Latarjet procedure. METHODS: Forty model scapulae (Sawbones Inc., Vashon, WA, USA) were used for this study. A 15% anterior inferior glenoid bone defect was created. The coracoid was osteotomized at the juncture of the vertical and horizontal aspects, transferred to the anterior-inferior edge of the glenoid, and fixed with either two 3.5 mm fully threaded cannulated cortical screws, two 3.5 mm fully threaded solid cortical screws, two 3.5 mm partially threaded cannulated screws, or two 4.5 mm partially threaded malleolar screws (MS). Biomechanical testing was performed with an Instron material testing machine (Instron Corp., Norwood, MA, USA) by applying loads to the lateral aspect of the transferred coracoid graft. The constructs were preconditioned with nondestructive cyclical loading (0N-20N) to determine construct stiffness. After 100 cycles of dynamic loading, the construct was loaded to failure to determine ultimate failure load, yield displacement, and mode of failure. RESULTS: All failures were associated with plastic deformation of the screws and coracoid graft fracture. There was a significantly lower initial stiffness for partially threaded cannulated screws compared to MS (186 ± 49.3 N/mm vs. 280 ± 65.5 N/mm, P = .01) but no significant differences among the other constructs. There was no difference in ultimate failure load (P = .18) or yield displacement (P = .05) among constructs. CONCLUSION: Two screw coracoid fixation of the coracoid in a simulated classic Latarjet procedure with 3.5 mm fully threaded cortical and cannulated screws is comparable to 4.5 mm MS in strength, stiffness, and displacement at failure. On the other hand, partially threaded 3.5 mm cannulated screws provide inferior fixation stiffness and could potentially affect clinical outcomes.

Clinical outcomes of open Latarjet-Patte procedures performed for recurrent anterior shoulder instability with primary bone loss versus failed arthroscopic Bankart repair.

BACKGROUND: This study compares the outcomes of Latarjet-Patte procedures (LPs) performed for primary glenohumeral instability in the setting of critical bone loss (LP-BL) versus salvage surgery performed after a failed arthroscopic Bankart repair (LP-FB). METHODS: LP's performed by senior author from 2017 to 2021 were separated into cohorts by LP indication. Data abstracted from electronic medical records included demographic information, preoperative clinical scores, radiological imaging, and complications. Postoperative clinical outcome scores collected after a 2-year minimum follow-up included: patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) upper extremity (UE), PROMIS pain interference, PROMIS pain intensity, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), and visual analog scale pain scores. RESULTS: A total of 47 patients (LP-BL: n=29, LP-FB: n=18) with a mean age of 29 years (range, 15-58 years) were included in this study. Both cohorts achieved good upper extremity functionality without significant differences as indicated by mean PROMIS UE (LP-BL: 52.6±10.0 vs. LP-FB: 54.6±7.6, P=0.442) and ASES score (LP-BL: 89.9±15.7 vs. LP-FB: 91.5±14.4, P=0.712). However, the LP-FB cohort reported lower levels of pain (LP-FB: 0.5±1.1 vs. LP-BL: 1.9±2.7, P=0.020) at their latest follow-up. There were no significant differences in complication rates including re-dislocation between cohorts (LP-BL: 2/29 [6.9%] vs. LP-FB: 2/18 [11.1%], P=0.629). CONCLUSIONS: When performed after failed Bankart repair, the LP results in similar postoperative functional outcomes and similar rates of complications and re-dislocations when compared to the primary indication of recurrent glenohumeral instability in the setting of critical bone loss. Level of evidence: III.

Glenoid Track Revisited.

The risk of Hill-Sachs lesion (HSL) to cause instability depends not only on the HSL but also on the glenoid size. Clinically, the only method to assess the risk of instability considering the dynamic interaction of both, the HSL together with the glenoid bone loss, is the glenoid track concept. Since it was introduced in a cadaveric study, its clinical efficacy and validity have been reported in the literature. Sometimes, the medial margin of the footprint (lateral margin of the glenoid track) is difficult to identify when a HSL is overriding the footprint. In such cases, we propose a method to draw an imaginary line connecting two landmarks. Although 3D-CT is the most accurate and widely used method to assess on/off-track lesions, our interest gradually is shifting towards MRI, which has no radiation concern. The current MR method is still under way. There are various risk factors influencing the recurrent instability after surgery. The glenoid track concept deals with only one of these factors, i.e., instability caused by bony lesions. Therefore, the following two issues are important: 1) how to assess the glenoid track precisely and 2) how to incorporate other risk factors into consideration. The former can be achieved by obtaining the custom-made glenoid track width using not the fixed value of 83%, but more individualized value obtained by measuring the active horizontal extension angle of the opposite shoulder in the sitting position. At the same time, the gray zone (peripheral-track lesion) needs to be clearly defined. The latter can be achieved by incorporating the risk factors other than the bony lesions. One example is the glenoid track instability management score (GTIMS), a combination of the glenoid track concept and the instability severity index (ISI) score. This new scoring system is expected to increase the predictive potential of the scoring system, and accordingly to enhance clinical decision making.

Arthroscopic suture bridge fixation for acute bony Bankart with anterior glenohumeral instability: a case report and narrative review.

Background and Objective: Anterior shoulder dislocations can result in acute glenoid rim fractures that compromise the bony stability of the glenohumeral joint. Adequate fixation of these fractures is required to restore stability, decrease shoulder pain, and facilitate return to activity. The double-row suture bridge is a relatively novel fixation technique, first described in 2009, that accomplishes internal fixation with sufficient stability using an all-arthroscopic technique to restore the glenoid footprint. A 40-year-old female with recurrent anterior shoulder instability in the setting of seizure disorder was found to have a bony Bankart lesion of 25% to 30% with a concomitant superior labral tear. The patient was treated with a double-row bony Bankart bridge and labral repair. At six months follow-up, she has progressed to a full recovery with no recurrence. Methods: A search was conducted in May 2023 in PubMed, EMBASE, and CINAHL with the search terms bony Bankart, bone Bankart, osseous Bankart, acute, bridge, suture bridge, double row. Key Content and Findings: Double-row suture bridge repairs result in improvement in shoulder function as determined by ASES (93.5), QuickDASH (4.5), SANE (95.9), and SF-12 (55.6). The overall recurrence rate of anterior instability after a bony Bankart bridge repair is 8%. When examining the return to prior level of function, 81.4% of patients were able to do so with only 7.9% of patients reporting significant modifications to their activity level. In mid-term results, double row suture bridge demonstrates similar outcomes to other all-arthroscopic fixation methods of bony Bankart injuries. Importantly, bony Bankart bridge remains a viable option for critical glenoid lesions over the 20% cutoff used in other all arthroscopic techniques. Biomechanically, the double-row suture bridge offers distinct benefits over its single-row counterpart including increased compression, reduced displacement, and reduced step-off. Conclusions: Although there is limited data, the studies discussed and the demonstrative case show the potential benefit of all-arthroscopic double-row suture bridge fixation including increased compression, decreased displacement, and a lower complication rate in patients with large bony Bankart lesions traditionally requiring bony augmentation. However, more robust studies are necessary to determine the long-term success of the double-row suture bridge.

The glenoid track concept is insufficient to predict Bankart failures: a computed tomography scan study.

Background: The glenoid track concept identifies patients with "off-track" (engaging) Hill-Sachs lesions (HSLs) as poor candidates for arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR) due to the high risk of shoulder instability recurrence. Purpose: To retrospectively calculate the glenoid track index, using preoperative computed tomography (CT) scans, in a cohort of patients with failed ABR. We hypothesized that all patients with a failed ABR would have engaging ("off-track") HSLs on preoperative CT scan. Type of Study: CT scan study. Methods: Preoperative CT scan of 45 patients, seen in our facility for failed ABR, was used to retrospectively calculate the glenoid track index. The risk of recurrence was also calculated for each patient using Instability Severity Index Score (ISI-Score) and Glenoid Track Instability Management Score (GTIMS). There were 37 failed isolated ABRs and 8 associated HS remplissage. The mean t age at surgery was 24 years (range, 15-52) and instability recurred at a mean of 29 months postoperative (range, 3-167). Results: Preoperative CT scan imaging identified "off-track" bony lesions in 85% of patients (38/45) and "on-track" lesions in 15% (7/45). No significant differences were noted between the 2 groups (off-track vs. on-track) regarding patient age, hyperlaxity, sports participation, size of HS lesion, or ISI-Score. The mean glenoid bone loss was 15.7% (range, 4-36%) with mean HS width was greater than 20 mm in 66% of CT scans. The preoperative ISI-Score was predictive of failures (>3 points in all patients) with no difference between on-track and off-track patients (6.3 ± 1.7 vs. 6.6 ± 1.7, P = .453). By contrast, the GTIMS did not predict failures as there was a significant difference between GTIMS for on-track and off-track patients (2.1 ± 1.3 vs. 6.6 ± 1.7). Conclusions: The glenoid track concept alone is insufficient to predict Bankart failures: in the present series of failed ABR, 15% of shoulders had "on-track" (non-engaging) lesions on preoperative CT scan. In patients, with "on-track" bony lesions, the ISI-Score is a useful predictive tool to detect patients at risk of failure, while the GTIMS is not.

Effective glenoid track: A novel concept for shoulder instability.

Background: Assessment and quantification of bone loss in cases of shoulder instability is critical for surgical decision making. The glenoid track concept was initially developed to assess Hill Sachs lesions taking into account the native glenoid diameter of the contralateral shoulder and assessing the degree of glenoid bone loss. However, it can not be reverse calculated to determine the effect of an addition of a bone block. We have developed a novel model to help address this problem yielding an "effective glenoid track" (EGT). Methods: Begin as we always do by using Itoi's concept for assessment of tracking based on the CT scan cuts. Next step is to calucate the Hill Sach's interval (HSI) which will require an MRI scan. Conclusion: The EGT allows for calculation of residual tracking of Hill Sachs lesions post a bone block addition and will aid in surgical decision making.

Objective calculation of glenoid bone loss in anterior shoulder instability based on the contour of the posteroinferior quadrant using the best-fit circle method: an accurate and reproducible evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Glenoid bone loss is proposed to be an important risk factor for recurrent anterior shoulder instability. The purpose of the present study was to develop an accurate and reproducible method for quantifying a bone loss in patients with anterior shoulder instability. METHODS: A total of 66 sets of computed tomography images of the glenoid were acquired and en face view was established. Based on the contour of the inferior half and posteroinferior quadrant of the glenoid, the best-fit circle was drawn using the least-squares method with a comparison of the radii. A bone loss was created via a simulated osteotomy, and a method for estimating the bone loss based on the contour of the posteroinferior quadrant was developed. RESULTS: The radii of the best-fit circle were 29.30±1.84 mm and 33.76±2.04 mm based on the inferior half and posteroinferior quadrant of the glenoid, respectively (P<0.01). Bone loss quantification using the contour of the inferior half or posteroinferior quadrant with simulated osteotomy showed a significant difference (P<0.01). For a 25% of glenoid bone loss, the estimated value using the traditional method on the contour of the posteroinferior quadrant was 34%. the A new method for accurate bone loss quantification was developed based on the contour of the posteroinferior quadrant of the glenoid. CONCLUSION: Estimation of the glenoid bone loss based on the rim of the posteroinferior quadrant may overestimate the glenoid bone loss due to the difference in the radius of the curvature of the inferior half and posteroinferior quadrant. A mathematical method was developed to correct this error and may aid in more accurately measuring the glenoid bone loss using the contour of the posteroinferior quadrant in patients with anterior shoulder instability.

Clinical Outcomes and Graft Resorption After Metal-Free Bone Block Suture Tape Cerclage Fixation for Recurrent Anterior Shoulder Instability: A Computed Tomography Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Glenoid reconstruction with a bone block for anterior glenoid bone loss (GBL) has shown excellent outcomes. However, fixation techniques that require metal implants are associated with metal-related complications and bone graft resorption. HYPOTHESIS: Arthroscopic glenoid reconstruction using a tricortical iliac crest bone graft (ICBG) and metal-free suture tape cerclage fixation can safely and effectively restore the glenoid surface area in patients with recurrent anterior shoulder instability and anterior GBL. STUDY DESIGN: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: Adult patients (≥18 years) of both sexes with recurrent anterior shoulder instability and anterior GBL ≥15% were enrolled. These patients underwent arthroscopic glenoid reconstruction with ICBGs and metal-free suture tape cerclage fixation. The effectiveness and clinical outcomes with this technique were evaluated at 24 months using functional scores. Resorption of the graft articular surface was assessed by computed tomography, with the graft surface divided into 6 square areas aligned in 2 columns. Descriptive analysis was conducted. RESULTS: A total of 23 consecutive patients met inclusion criteria (22 male, 1 female; mean age, 30.5 ± 7.9 years). The mean preoperative GBL was 19.7% ± 3.4%, and there were 15 allograft and 8 autograft ICBGs. All patients exhibited graft union at 3 months. The median follow-up was 38.5 months (interquartile range, 24-45 months). The Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index, Rowe, Constant-Murley, and Subjective Shoulder Value scores improved from preoperatively (35.1%, 24.8, 83.1, and 30.9, respectively) to postoperatively (84.7%, 91.1, 96.0, and 90.9, respectively) (P < .001). No differences in clinical scores were observed between the graft types. One surgical wound infection was reported, and 2 patients (8.7% [95% CI, 2.4%-26.8%]) required a reoperation. The mean overall glenoid surface area increased from 80.3% ± 3.5% to 117.0% ± 8.3% immediately after surgery before subsequently reducing to 98.7% ± 6.2% and 95.0% ± 5.7% at 12 and 24 months, respectively (P < .001). The mean graft resorption rate was 18.1% ± 7.9% in the inner column and 80.3% ± 22.4% in the outer column. Additionally, 3 patients treated with an allograft (20.0% [95% CI, 7.1%-45.2%]), including the 2 with clinical failures, exhibited complete graft resorption at the last follow-up. CONCLUSION: Arthroscopic glenoid reconstruction using an ICBG and metal-free suture tape cerclage fixation was safe and effective, yielding excellent clinical outcomes. Resorption of the graft articular surface predominantly affected the nonloaded areas beyond the best-fit circle perimeter.

Posterior Shoulder Instability and Glenoid Bone Loss: A Review and a Free Bone Graft Technique.

Posterior glenoid bone loss (pGBL) is frequently associated with posterior shoulder instability. Posterior glenohumeral instability accounts for a small percentage of shoulder pathologies, and critical bone loss in posterior instability has not been well defined in the literature. Younger patient populations who participate in activities that repetitively stress the posterior stabilizing structures of the shoulder are more prone to developing posterior shoulder instability. A variety of surgical options have been described, ranging from isolated capsulolabral repair to glenoid osteotomy. Soft-tissue repair alone may be an inadequate treatment in cases of pGBL and places patients at a high risk of recurrence. Our preferred technique for posterior glenoid reconstruction in cases of pGBL involves the transfer of a free iliac crest bone graft onto the native glenoid. The graft is contoured to fit the osseous defect and secured to provide an extension of the glenoid track. In this study, we review pGBL in the setting of posterior instability and describe our technique in detail. Further long-term studies are needed to refine the indications for glenoid bone graft procedures and quantify what constitutes a critical pGBL.

Primary and revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty using a patient-matched glenoid implant for severe glenoid bone deficiency.

BACKGROUND: Severe glenoid bone loss in the setting of both primary and revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) continues to remain a significant challenge. The purpose of this study was to report on radiographic and clinical outcomes of primary and revision rTSA using a patient-matched, 3-dimensionally printed metal glenoid implant to address severe glenoid bone deficiency. This is a follow-up study to previously reported preliminary results. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed on 62 patients with severe glenoid bone deficiency who underwent either primary or revision rTSA using the Comprehensive Vault Reconstruction System (VRS) (Zimmer Biomet) at a single institution. Preoperative and postoperative values for the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH), Constant, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form (ASES), Simple Shoulder Test (SST), Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE), and visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores as well as active range of motion (ROM) were collected and compared using the Wilcoxon signed rank test with the level of statistical significance set at P < .05. The percentage of patients achieving minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) was also calculated. RESULTS: Fifty-five of 62 shoulders (88.7%) were able to be contacted at a minimum of 2 years postoperatively, with 47 of 62 (75.8%) having complete clinical and radiographic follow-up with a mean age of 67.5 years (range, 48-85 years) and follow-up of 39.2 months (range, 25-56 months). There were 19 primary and 28 revision rTSAs. Significant improvements were seen in mean active forward flexion (63.1° ± 30.3° to 116.8° ± 35°), abduction (48.1° ± 16.1 to 76.2° ± 13.4°) (P < .001), external rotation (16° ± 23.7° to 32.1° ± 24.5°) (P < .005), DASH (59.9 ± 17.7 to 35.7 ± 24.3), Constant (23.4 ± 13.1 to 53.1 ± 17.4), ASES (27.8 ± 16.2 to 69.1 ± 25.2), SST (3.3 ± 2.5 to 7.6 ± 3.5), SANE (28.9 ± 18.3 to 66.7 ± 21.2), and VAS pain (7.1 ± 2.4 to 1.8 ± 2.6) scores (P < .001). MCID and SCB was achieved in a majority of patients postoperatively. The overall complication rate was 29.1%, with only 1 baseplate failure. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates promising evidence that the VRS implant can be used as a viable option to achieve clinically important improvement in a majority of patients treated for severe glenoid bone deficiency with rTSA in both the primary and revision setting.

Beyond guesswork: how accurate are surgeons at determining the degree of glenoid bone loss in instability surgery?

Background: Accurate measurement of glenoid bone loss (GBL) is critical to preoperative planning in cases of recurrent shoulder instability. The concept of critical bone loss has been established with a value of GBL >13.5% being associated with higher failure rate following arthroscopic Bankart Repair. Advanced imaging, such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans, can be used to quantify GBL prior to surgery using the best-fit circle technique. Surgeons have traditionally relied on visual inspection of the MRI scan preoperatively or on visual inspection of the glenoid at the time of arthroscopy to determine whether GBL is present. The purpose of this study is to determine if 3 fellowship-trained shoulder surgeons could adequately quantify GBL without using best-fit circle measurements on MRI. Methods: A retrospective review was performed which included 122 patients over an 8-year period that had an arthroscopic Bankart repair performed by 3 fellowship-trained surgeons. In all patients, preoperative MRI scans were retrospectively measured using best-fit circle technique to determine true GBL and compare that to the surgeons' preoperative and intraoperative estimation of GBL. Results: GBL was correctly identified in only 36% (18/50) of patients when the preoperative best-fit circle measurements were not made. Critical bone loss was missed in 9.8% (12/122) of patients in the study group. The estimated mean bone loss in that group by visual inspection was 11.3% compared to 16% true bone loss measured on MRI. Even in the 18 patients with some identified bone loss prior to surgery, critical bone loss was missed in 6 patients when using visual inspection of the MRI or intraoperative inspection alone. Conclusion: Simple visual inspection of glenoid images on MRI scan and visual inspection of the glenoid at the time of surgery are inaccurate in determining the true extent of GBL especially in cases of subtle bone deficiency. Preoperative planning is dependent on the exact degree of bone deficiency and measurement on the MRI scan using the best-fit circle technique is recommended in all cases of instability surgery.

Bipolar bone loss and distance to dislocation.

Studies have shown that glenoid- and humeral-sided bone loss may be present in up to 73-93% of individuals with recurrent anterior shoulder instability. As such, bone loss must be addressed appropriately, as the amount of bone loss drives surgical decision making and influences outcomes. Methods to describe and measure bone loss have changed over time. Originally, glenoid and humeral bone loss were viewed separately. However, the concepts of bipolar bone loss, the glenoid track (GT), and "on/off-track" lesions arose, highlighting the interplay between the two entities in contributing to recurrent instability. Classically, "off-track" lesions have been described as those Hill-Sachs interval (HSI) greater than the GT, and have been shown to result in higher rates of re-instability when addressed nonoperatively or with Bankart repair alone. More recently, further attention has been given to "on-track" lesions (HSI < GT). The new concept of "distance to dislocation" (DTD) has gained popularity. DTD is calculated as the difference between the GT and HSI, and literature evaluating DTD suggests that not all "on-track" lesions should be treated in the same manner. The purpose of this concept review article is twofold: (I) describe glenoid, humeral, and bipolar bone loss in the setting of anterior shoulder instability; and (II) elaborate on the new concept of "DTD" and its use in guidance of management.

Glenoid bone loss in shoulder arthroplasty: a narrative review.

Background and Objective: Crucial to the success of any total or reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) is the stability of the glenoid component fixation. Instability can lead to early implant failure and unsatisfactory results. Patients often present with varying forms of glenoid bone loss (GBL) in both the primary and revision settings, which can be a challenge for the treating surgeon. Severe cases of GBL can increase the risk of potential complications and diminish implant longevity. The use of the reverse total shoulder replacement has been particularly helpful when addressing significant glenoid bony defects. Various approaches have been proposed to deal with GBL, all of which require an individualized assessment of the specifics of the defect in order to provide maximal fixation and thereby optimize the longevity of the shoulder arthroplasty. This article aims to review the recent literature on GBL in shoulder arthroplasty to provide guidance when considering treatment based on the best available evidence. Methods: PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, AccessMedicine, ClinicalKey, DynaMed, and Micromedex were queried for publications utilizing the following keywords: "glenoid bone loss" AND "glenoid bone deficiency" AND "shoulder arthroplasty" AND "classification". The search was restricted to research published between 2004 and 2023. There were no restrictions on study type or language. Key Content and Findings: GBL should be critically evaluated prior to undertaking total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). The treating surgeon should be aware of various methods of addressing bone defects. Conclusions: The use of TSA is increasing to address various shoulder pathologies. Addressing glenoid bone defects is of critical importance to maximize the longevity and outcome of TSA.

Statistical shape models that predict native glenoid width based on glenoid height are inaccurate in their current form: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: The extent of measurement errors of statistical shape models that predict native glenoid width based on glenoid height to subsequently determine the amount of anterior glenoid bone loss is unclear. Therefore, the aim of this study was to (1) create a statistical shape model based on glenoid height and width measured on 3-dimensional computed tomography (3D-CT) and determine the accuracy through measurement errors and (2) determine measurement errors of existing 3D-CT statistical shape models. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective cross-sectional study included all consecutive patients who underwent CT imaging before undergoing primary surgical treatment of traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation between 2007 and 2022 at the Tohoku University Hospital and affiliated hospitals. Patients were included when instability was unilateral and CT scans of both the injured and contralateral uninjured shoulder were available. 3D segmentations were created and glenoid height and width of the injured and contralateral uninjured side (gold standard) were measured. Accuracy was determined through measurement errors, which were defined as a percentage error deviation from native glenoid width (contralateral uninjured glenoid), calculated as follows: measurement error = [(estimated glenoid width with a statistical shape model - native glenoid width) / native glenoid width] × 100%. A linear regression analysis was performed to create a statistical shape model based on glenoid height according to the formula: native glenoid width = a × glenoid height + b. RESULTS: The diagnosis and procedure codes identified 105 patients, of which 69 (66%) were eligible for inclusion. Glenoid height demonstrated a very strong correlation (r = 0.80) with native glenoid width. The linear regression formula based on this cohort was as follows: native glenoid width = 0.75 × glenoid height - 0.61, and it demonstrated an absolute average measurement error of 5% ± 4%. The formulas by Giles et al, Chen et al and Rayes et al demonstrated absolute average measurement errors of 10% ± 7%, 6% ± 5%, and 9% ± 6%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Statistical shape models that estimate native glenoid width based on glenoid height demonstrate unacceptable measurement errors, despite a high correlation. Therefore, great caution is advised when using these models to determine glenoid bone loss percentage. To minimize errors caused by morphologic differences, preference goes to methods that use the contralateral side as reference.