Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Humeral and glenoid bone defects as factors

54 views

Published on

-

Published in: Health & Medicine
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Humeral and glenoid bone defects as factors

  1. 1. E. Mataragas, C. Vassos, N. Tzanakakis, G. Mouzopoulos, C.K. Yiannakopoulos, Emm. Antonogiannakis 2nd Orthopaedic Dpt. – Shoulder and Arthroscopy Unit, IASO GENERAL Hospital
  2. 2.  Age of 1st Dislocation  Loose Joints  Overhead Profession  Overhead/Contact Sports  Collagen Related Pathology  Number of Dislocations  Osseous Defects Rockwood Ch A Jr., THE SHOULDER 4th ED.
  3. 3. There is a well-recognized association between osseous defects of the glenoid or humerus and shoulder dislocation, which often leads to recurrent instability. Boileau P., J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006 Aug;88(8):1755-63. Lynch JR., J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009 Mar-Apr;18(2):317-28. Burkhart SS., Instr Course Lect. 2009;58:323-36.
  4. 4. To evaluate humeral and glenoid bone loss, in patients arthroscopically treated for shoulder instability, as factors of recurrence.
  5. 5.  Retrospective, continuous, monocentric.  Series of 114 patients from 2000-2008. One surgeon performed all the procedures!
  6. 6. Glenoid Index in 3D CT scan of both shoulders Critical Limit Glenoid index 0.75 SS Burkhart Arthroscopy: Vol 24, No 4 (April), 2008: pp 376-382
  7. 7. Taverna et al. Pico Method 2D CT – measurement of glenoid surface Critical Limit 25% loss of glenoid surface
  8. 8. Scope on anterior portal, measurement of anteroposterior defect width Sugaya et al. JBJS Am 2005
  9. 9. Arm at 35˚Abduction Neutral rotation
  10. 10. -Mean age of patients: 28 1st episode: 21 dislocations: 17 Men: v=103 Women: v=11 -Revision surgery: 7
  11. 11. Athletes: 75 15 Overhead 23 Contact 22 Overhead & Contact No sports: 39
  12. 12. Complete follow up existed for 92 patients. Follow up ranged from 4-108 months (Mean=44). Post op rehabilitation was supervised by a doctor dedicated to shoulder problems. Recurrence and functional outcome were evaluated pre-op and post-op with the Rowe Zarins Score.
  13. 13. Osseous Lesions: Hill Sachs 97 (66 Large, 23 Medium & 8 Small) Glenoid Bone loss 104 (16 Large, 59 Medium & 29 Small) “Inverted pear” glenoid shape 13 “Bony” Bankart Lesion 13
  14. 14. Bankart LesionsBankart Lesions 77/11477/114 (67,5%)(67,5%) RC TearRC Tear 18/114 (15,8%)18/114 (15,8%) SLAPSLAP 44/11444/114 (38,6%)(38,6%) ALPSAALPSA 24/11424/114 (21,6%)(21,6%)
  15. 15. Recurrence of instability was noted in 5 patients (4,38%): 2 MVA 2 Fall 1 Involuntary
  16. 16. All 5 of them presented Hill Sachs lesions. Their glenoid bone loss was measured as: (2 Large, 2 Medium, 1 Small) None showed “inverted pear” glenoid shape. None presented with joint hypermobility. All 5 of them were into Overhead/Contact sports. (2 Professional: Mean=15hr/w and 3 Amateur: Mean=2,5hr/w).
  17. 17. All 5 patients were reoperated arthroscopically and have not showed recurrent instability so far.
  18. 18. Patient Satisfaction 87 Very Satisfied/ 5 Satisfied 94,6% / 5,4% Return to Work 100% Return to Sports 50 patients (mostly because they didn’t try) 66,6%
  19. 19. Pre-Op Post-Op p Rowe Zarins 33 95 < 0.05 Range of Scores Pre-op: 15-80 Post-op: 80-100
  20. 20. At least in this series, it seems that humeral and glenoid bone loss do not significantly contribute to the recurrence of arthroscopically treated shoulder instability.

×