Prospective Evaluation of Posterior Glenoid Bone Loss After First-time and Recurrent Posterior Glenohumeral Instability Events

Posterior Shoulder Instability, Part I-Diagnosis, Nonoperative Management, and Labral Repair for Posterior Shoulder Instability-An International Expert Delphi Consensus Statement

PURPOSE

To establish consensus statements on the diagnosis, nonoperative management, and labral repair for posterior shoulder instability.

METHODS

A consensus process on the treatment of posterior shoulder instability was conducted, with 71 shoulder/sports surgeons from 12 countries participating on the basis of their level of expertise in the field. Experts were assigned to 1 of 6 working groups defined by specific subtopics within posterior shoulder instability. Consensus was defined as achieving 80% to 89% agreement, whereas strong consensus was defined as 90% to 99% agreement, and unanimous consensus was indicated by 100% agreement with a proposed statement.

RESULTS

Unanimous agreement was reached on the indications for nonoperative management and labral repair, which include whether patients had primary or recurrent instability, with symptoms/functional limitations, and whether there was other underlying pathology, or patient's preference to avoid or delay surgery. In addition, there was unanimous agreement that recurrence rates can be diminished by attention to detail, appropriate indication and assessment of risk factors, recognition of abnormalities in glenohumeral morphology, careful capsulolabral debridement and reattachment, small anchors with inferior placement and multiple fixation points that create a bumper with the labrum, treatment of concomitant pathologies, and a well-defined rehabilitation protocol with strict postoperative immobilization.

CONCLUSIONS

The study group achieved strong or unanimous consensus on 63% of statements related to the diagnosis, nonoperative treatment, and labrum repair for posterior shoulder instability. The statements that achieved unanimous consensus were the relative indications for nonoperative management, and the relative indications for labral repair, as well as the steps to minimize complications for labral repair. There was no consensus on whether an arthrogram is needed when performing advanced imaging, the role of corticosteroids/orthobiologics in nonoperative management, whether a posteroinferior portal is required.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level V, expert opinion.

Radiographic and Advanced Imaging Evaluation of Posterior Shoulder Instability

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Posterior shoulder instability is an uncommon but important cause of shoulder dysfunction and pain which may occur as the result of seizure, high energy trauma, or repetitive stress related to occupational or sport-specific activities. This current review details the imaging approach to the patient with posterior shoulder instability and describes commonly associated soft tissue and bony pathologies identified by radiographs, CT, and MR imaging.

RECENT FINDINGS

Advances in MR imaging technology and techniques allow for more accurate evaluation of bone and soft tissue pathology associated with posterior shoulder instability while sparing patients exposure to radiation. Imaging can contribute significantly to the clinical management of patients with posterior shoulder instability by demonstrating the extent of associated injuries and identifying predisposing anatomic conditions. Radiologic evaluation should be guided by clinical history and physical examination, beginning with radiographs followed by CT and/or MRI for assessment of osseous and soft tissue pathology. Synthesis of a patient's clinical history, physical exam findings, and radiologic examinations should guide clinical management.

The Perfect-Circle Technique Demonstrates Poor Inter-Rater Reliability in Measuring Posterior Glenoid Bone Loss on Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Purpose

To evaluate the reliability of the "perfect-circle" methodology for measurement of glenoid bone loss with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients with posterior glenohumeral instability.

Methods

A prospective chart review was performed on patients who underwent isolated arthroscopic posterior labral repairs in our institution's electronic medical records between January 1, 2021, and June 30, 2021. Inclusion criteria included isolated posterior shoulder instability with posterior labral repair and corroborated tears on MRI. A total of 9 raters, either sports or shoulder and elbow fellowship-trained orthopaedic surgeons, each evaluated the affected shoulder MRI scans twice, at over 2 weeks apart. Measurements followed the "perfect-circle" technique and included projected anterior-to-posterior (AP) glenoid diameter, amount of posterior bone loss, and percentage of posterior bone loss.

Results

Ten consecutive patients between the ages of 17 and 46 years with diagnosed posterior glenohumeral instability were selected. The average age was 28 ± 10 years, and 60% of patients were male. The patient's dominant arm was affected in 40%, and 50% of cases involved the right shoulder. The average glenoid diameter was 29.62 ± 3.69 mm, and the average measured bone loss was 2.8 ± 1.74 mm. The average percent posterior glenoid bone loss was 9.41 ± 5.78%. The inter-rater reliability was poor for the AP diameter and for the posterior glenoid bone loss with intraclass correlation coefficients at 0.30 (0.12-0.62) and 0.22 (0.07-0.54) respectively. The intrarater reliability was poor for AP diameter and moderate for posterior glenoid bone loss, with intraclass correlation coefficients at 0.41 (0.22-0.57) and 0.50 (0.33-0.64), respectively.

Conclusions

Using the "perfect-circle" technique for evaluating posterior glenohumeral bone loss has poor-to-moderate inter- and intrarater reliability from MRI.

Level of Evidence

Level IV, prospective diagnostic study.

Complications following arthroscopic Bankart repair: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Complications are rare after arthroscopic Bankart repair, and as a result, there is a lack of guidance over rates of complications that can be used to consent patients. The purpose of this study is to systematically review the literature to assess the complications after arthroscopic Bankart repair, other than recurrent instability.

METHODS

A literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library was performed based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Clinical studies reporting on the complications after arthroscopic Bankart repair were included.

RESULTS

A total of 194 studies were included in the analysis, with 13,979 patients and 14,019 shoulders undergoing arthroscopic Bankart repair. The overall complication rate was 0.67%, with frozen shoulder being the most common complication occurring in 0.32%. Persistent pain occurred in 0.17%. The rates of nerve, hardware, and wound complications were 0.07%, 0.05%, and 0.03%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The arthroscopic Bankart repair has a very low rate of complications. Frozen shoulder and persistent pain are the most frequently encountered complications.

Establishing the Minimal Clinically Important Difference, Substantial Clinical Benefit, and Patient Acceptable Symptomatic State After Arthroscopic Posterior Labral Repair for Posterior Glenohumeral Instability

BACKGROUND

Posterior glenohumeral instability is an increasingly recognized cause of shoulder pain and dysfunction among young, active populations. Outcomes after posterior stabilization procedures are commonly assessed using patient-reported outcome measures including the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE), the Rowe instability score, the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, and the visual analog scale (VAS) for pain. The clinical significance thresholds for these measures after arthroscopic posterior labral repair (aPLR), however, remain undefined.

PURPOSE

We aimed to define the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), and patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) for the SANE, Rowe score, and ASES score as well as the VAS pain after aPLR. Additionally, we sought to determine preoperative factors predictive of reaching, as well as failing to reach, clinical significance.

STUDY DESIGN

Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

This study was a retrospective analysis of patient-reported outcome scores collected from patients who underwent aPLR between January 2011 and December 2018. To determine the clinically significant threshold that corresponded to achieving a meaningful outcome, the MCID, SCB, and PASS were calculated for the SANE, Rowe score, ASES score, and VAS pain utilizing either an anchor- or distribution-based method. Additionally, univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to determine the factors associated with achieving, or not achieving, the MCID, SCB, and PASS.

RESULTS

A total of 73 patients with a mean follow-up of 82.55 ± 24.20 months were available for final analysis. MCID, SCB, and PASS values for the VAS pain were 1.10, 6, and 3, respectively; for the ASES score were 7.8, 34, and 80, respectively; for the SANE were 10.15, 33, and 85, respectively; and for the Rowe score were 11.3, 60, and 90, respectively. To meet the MCID, male sex (odds ratio [OR], 1.1639; P = .0293) was found to be a positive predictor for the VAS pain, and a lower preoperative SANE score (OR, 0.9939; P = .0003) was found to be a negative predictor for the SANE. Dominant arm involvement was associated with lower odds of achieving the PASS for the ASES score (OR, 0.7834; P = .0259) and VAS pain (OR, 0.7887; P = .0436). Patients who reported a history of shoulder trauma were more likely to reach the PASS for the SANE (OR, 1.3501; P = .0089), Rowe score (OR, 1.3938; P = .0052), and VAS pain (OR, 1.3507; P = .0104) as well as the SCB for the ASES score (OR, 1.2642; P = .0469) and SANE (OR, 1.2554; P = .0444). A higher preoperative VAS pain score was associated with higher odds of achieving the SCB for both the VAS pain (OR, 1.1653; P = .0110) and Rowe score (OR, 1.1282; P = .0175). Lastly, concomitant biceps tenodesis was associated with greater odds of achieving the SCB for the ASES score (OR, 1.3490; P = .0130) and reaching the PASS for the SANE (OR, 1.3825; P = .0038) and Rowe score (OR, 1.4040; P = .0035).

CONCLUSION

To our knowledge, this study is the first to define the MCID, SCB, and PASS for the ASES score, Rowe score, SANE, and VAS pain in patients undergoing aPLR. Furthermore, we found that patients who reported a history of shoulder trauma and those who underwent concomitant biceps tenodesis demonstrated a greater likelihood of achieving clinical significance. Dominant arm involvement was associated with lower odds of achieving clinical significance.

Risk Factors for Glenoid Bone Loss in the Setting of Posterior Glenohumeral Instability

Background

Posterior instability has been reported to account for up to 24% of cases of shoulder instability in certain active populations. However, there is a paucity of data available regarding the risk factors associated with posterior glenoid bone loss.

Purpose

To characterize the epidemiology of, and risk factors associated with, glenoid bone loss within a cohort of patients who underwent primary arthroscopic shoulder stabilization for isolated posterior-type glenohumeral instability.

Study Design

Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods

This was a retrospective analysis of patients who underwent primary arthroscopic shoulder stabilization for posterior-type instability between January 2011 and December 2019. Preoperative magnetic resonance arthrograms were used to calculate posterior glenoid bone loss using a perfect circle technique. Patient characteristics and revision rates were obtained. Bone loss (both in millimeters and as a percentage) was compared between patients based on sex, age, arm dominance, sports participation, time to surgery, glenoid version, history of trauma, and number of anchors used for labral repair.

Results

Included were 112 patients with a mean age of 28.66 ± 10.07 years; 91 patients (81.25%) were found to have measurable bone loss. The mean bone loss was 2.46 ± 1.68 mm (8.98% ± 6.12%). Significantly greater bone loss was found in athletes versus nonathletes (10.09% ± 6.86 vs 7.44% ± 4.56; P = .0232), female versus male patients (11.17% ± 6.53 vs 8.17% ± 5.80; P = .0212), and patients dominant arm involvement versus nondominant arm involvement (10.26% ± 5.63 vs 7.07% ± 6.38; P = .0064). Multivariate regression analysis identified dominant arm involvement as an independent risk factor for bone loss (P = .0033), and dominant arm involvement (P = .0024) and athlete status (P = .0133) as risk factors for bone loss >13.5%. At the conclusion of the study period, 7 patients had experienced recurrent instability (6.25%).

Conclusion

The findings of this study are in alignment with existing data suggesting that posterior glenoid bone loss is highly prevalent in patients undergoing primary arthroscopic stabilization for posterior-type shoulder instability. Our results suggest that patients with dominant arm involvement are at risk for greater posterior glenoid bone loss. Athlete status and dominant arm involvement were identified as independent risk factors for bone loss >13.5%.

Acromion morphology is associated with glenoid bone loss in posterior glenohumeral instability

BACKGROUND

The acromion morphology in a shoulder with posterior instability differs from that of a shoulder without glenohumeral instability. Specifically, the acromion with a flatter sagittal tilt, greater posterior acromial height, and less posterior coverage is associated with posterior instability. However, the association between acromion morphology and glenoid bone loss (GBL) in the setting of posterior glenohumeral instability has not previously been investigated. The purpose of this study was to determine whether acromial morphology influences the extent or pattern of posterior GBL in a cohort of patients with posterior glenohumeral instability.

METHODS

This multicenter retrospective study identified 89 shoulders with unidirectional posterior glenohumeral instability. Total area GBL was measured using the best-fit circle method on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Shoulders were divided into 3 groups: (1) no GBL (n = 30), (2) GBL 0%-13.5% (n = 45), or (3) GBL ≥13.5% (n = 14). Acromion measurements were performed on MRI and included acromial tilt, posterior acromial height, anterior acromial coverage, and posterior acromial coverage.

RESULTS

Patients without GBL had a steeper acromial tilt (58.5° ± 1.4°) compared with those with 0%-13.5% GBL (64.3° ± 1.5°) or GBL ≥13.5% (67.7° ± 1.8°) (P = .004). Patients without GBL also had greater posterior coverage (65.4° ± 1.7°) compared with those with GBL (60.3° ± 1.4°) (P = .015). Posterior acromion height was not significantly different among groups.

CONCLUSION

The results demonstrate that an acromion with a flatter sagittal tilt and less posterior coverage is associated with GBL in the setting of posterior glenohumeral instability. This is important to consider as posterior GBL has been identified as a risk factor for failure of posterior soft tissue-stabilizing procedures.

Prevalence and Risk Factors of Glenoid Bone Loss in Combined Shoulder Instability in Young, Active-Duty Military Patients

Background

US military servicemembers experience higher rates of posterior and combined-type instability as compared with their nonmilitary peers.

Purpose

(1) To determine the prevalence of glenoid bone loss (GBL) in young, active-duty military patients with combined-type shoulder instability who underwent operative shoulder stabilization; (2) to evaluate whether GBL is associated with differences in postoperative outcomes; and (3) to identify factors associated with larger defects.

Study Design

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods

This study included active-duty military patients who underwent primary surgical shoulder stabilization for combined anterior and posterior capsulolabral tears between January 2012 and December 2018. Preoperative magnetic resonance arthrograms were used to calculate anterior, posterior, and total GBL using the "perfect circle" technique. We recorded patient characteristics, revisions, complications, return to duty, range of motion, and scores on multiple outcome measures (visual analog scale for pain, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, and Rowe). GBL prevalence was compared by time to surgery, glenoid version, history of trauma, and number of anchors used for labral repair. Outcome scores, return to active duty, and revision procedures were compared by degree of anterior or posterior GBL: <13.5% (mild) versus ≥13.5% (subcritical).

Results

GBL was noted in 28 (77.8%) of the 36 patients. Nineteen (52.8%) patients had anterior GBL, 18 (50.0%) had posterior, and 9 (25.0%) had combined. Four (11.1%) patients had subcritical anterior or posterior GBL. Increased posterior GBL was associated with history of trauma (P = .041), time to surgery >12 months (P = .024), and glenoid retroversion ≥9° (P = .010); increased total GBL was associated with longer time to surgery (P = .023) and labral repair requiring >4 anchors (P = .012); and increased anterior GBL was associated with labral repair requiring >4 anchors (P = .011). There were statistically significant improvements on all outcome measures, with no changes in range of motion postoperatively. No significant difference on any outcome score was observed between patients with mild and subcritical GBL.

Conclusion

In our analysis, 78% of patients had appreciable GBL, suggesting that GBL is highly prevalent in this patient population. Longer time to surgery, traumatic cause, significant glenoid retroversion, and large labral tears were identified as risk factors for increased GBL.

Practical considerations for determination of scapular internal rotation and its relevance in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty planning

BACKGROUND

Scapulothoracic orientation, especially scapular internal rotation (SIR) may influence range of motion in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) and is subjected to body posture. Clinical measurements of SIR rely on apical bony landmarks, which depend on changes in scapulothoracic orientation, while radiographic measurements are often limited by the restricted field of view (FOV) in CT scans. Therefore, the goal of this study was (1) to determine whether the use of CT scans with a limited FOV to measure SIR is reliable and (2) if a clinical measurement could be a valuable alternative.

METHODS

This anatomical study analyzed the whole-body CT scans of 100 shoulders in 50 patients (32 male and 18 female) with a mean age of 61.2 ± 20.1 years (range 18; 91). (1) CT scans were rendered into 3D models and SIR was determined as previously described. Results were compared to measurements taken in 2D CT scans with a limited FOV. (2) Three apical bony landmarks were defined: (the angulus acromii (AA), the midpoint between the AA and the coracoid process tip (C) and the acromioclavicular (AC) joint. The scapular axis was determined connecting the trigonum scapulae with these landmarks and referenced to the glenoid center. The measurements were repeated with 0°, 10°, 20°, 30° and 40° anterior scapular tilt.

RESULTS

Mean SIR was 44.8° ± 5.9° and 45.6° ± 6.6° in the 3D and 2D model, respectively (p < 0.371). Mean difference between the measurements was 0.8° ± 2.5° with a maximum of 10.5°. Midpoint AA/C showed no significant difference to the scapular axis at 0° (p = 0.203) as did the AC-joint at 10° anterior scapular tilt (p = 0.949). All other points showed a significant difference from the scapular axis at all degrees of tilt.

CONCLUSION

2D CT scans are reliable to determine SIR, even if the spine is not depicted. Clinical measurements using apical superficial scapula landmarks are a possible alternative; however, anterior tilt influenced by posture alters measured SIR.