A new method to evaluate glenoid erosion in instable shoulder

International Archives of Medicine

Sergio L Checchia³  Vitor E Valenti²  Luiz Carlos de Abreu¹  Edson N Fujiki¹  Luiz Henrique de Oliveira¹  Rogerio S Bueno¹  Luis G Nascimento¹  Joel Murachovsky¹  Roberto Y Ikemoto¹ 

[1] Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Faculdade de Medicina do ABC, Av. Príncipe de Gales, 821., 09060-650 Santo Andre, SP, Brazil;Faculty of Philosophy and Sciences, UNESP, Av. Hygino Muzzi Filho, 737., Marilia, SP 17.525-900, Brazil;Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Faculdade de Ciências Médicas, Santa Casa de Misericórdia de São Paulo (SCMSP), Av. Príncipe de Gales, 821., 09060-650 Santo Andre, SP, Brazil

关键词: Grafting bone;    Glenoid cavith;    Tomography;    Arthroscopy;    Shoulder joint;   

Others  :  802895
DOI  :  10.1186/1755-7682-6-42

 received in 2013-01-23, accepted in 2013-10-12,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

We aimed to establish values and parameters using multislice reconstruction in axial computerized tomography (CT) in order to quantify the erosion of the glenoid cavity in cases of shoulder instability.

Methods

We studied two groups using CT. Group I had normal subjects and Group II had patients with shoulder instability. We measured values of the vertical segment, the superior horizontal, medial and inferior segments, and also calculated the ratio of the horizontal superior and inferior segments of the glenoid cavity in both normal subjects and those with shoulder instability. These variables were recorded during arthroscopy for cases with shoulder instability.

Results

The mean values were 40.87 mm, 17.86 mm, 26.50 mm, 22.86 mm and 0.79 for vertical segment, the superior horizontal, medial and inferior segments, and the ratio between horizontal superior and inferior segments of the glenoid cavity respectively, in normal subjects. For subjects with unstable shoulders the mean values were 37.33 mm, 20.83 mm, 23.07 mm and 0.91 respectively. Arthroscopic measurements yielded an inferior segment value of 24.48 mm with a loss of 2.39 mm (17.57%). The ratio between the superior and inferior segments of the glenoid cavity was 0.79. This value can be used as a normative value for evaluating degree of erosion of the anterior border of the glenoid cavity. However, values found using CT should not be used on a comparative basis with values found during arthroscopy.

Conclusions

Computerized tomographic measurements of the glenoid cavity yielded reliable values consistent with those in the literature.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Ikemoto et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Burkhart SS, De Beer JF: Traumatic glenohumeral bone defects and their relationship to failure of arthroscopic Bankart repairs: significance of the inverted-pear glenoid and the humeral engaging Hill-Sachs lesion. Arthroscopy 2000, 16:677-694.
• [2]Tauber M, Resch H, Forstner R, Raffl M, Schauer J: Reasons for failure after surgical repair of anterior shoulder instability. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2004, 13:279-285.
• [3]Rowe CR, Patel D, Southmayd WW: The Bankart procedure: a long-term end-result study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1978, 60:1-16.
• [4]Turkel SJ, Panio MW, Marshall JL, Girgis FG: Stabilizing mechanisms preventing anterior dislocation of the glenohumeral joint. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1981, 63:1208-1217.
• [5]Sugaya H, Moriishi J, Dohi M, Kon Y, Tsuchiya A: Glenoid rim morphology in recurrent anterior glenohumeral instability. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003, 85-A:878-884.
• [6]Itoi E, Lee SB, Berglund LJ, Berge LL, An KN: The effect of a glenoid defect on anteroinferior stability of the shoulder after Bankart repair: a cadaveric study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2000, 82:35-46.
• [7]Burkhart SS, Debeer JF, Tehrany AM, Parten PM: Quantifying glenoid bone loss arthroscopically in shoulder instability. Arthroscopy 2002, 18:488-491.
• [8]Griffith JF, Yung PS, Antonio GE, Tsang PH, Ahuja AT, Chan KM: CT compared with arthroscopy in quantifying glenoid bone loss. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007, 189:1490-1493.
• [9]Montgomery WH Jr, Wahl M, Hettridh C, Itoi E, Lippitt SB, Matsen FA 3rd: Anteroinferior bone-grafting can restore stability in osseous glenoid defects. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005, 87:1972-1977.
• [10]Greis PE, Scuderi MG, Mohr A, Bachus KN, Burks RT: Glenohumeral articular contact areas and pressures following labral and osseous injury to the anteroinferior quadrant of the glenoid. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2002, 2002(11):442-451.
• [11]Gerber C, Nyffeler RW: Classification of glenohumeral joint instability. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2002, 40:65-76.
• [12]Yamamoto N, Itoi E, Abe H, Kikuchi K, Seki N, Minagawa H, Tuoheti Y: Effect of an anterior glenoid defect on anterior shoulder stability: a cadaveric study. Am J Sports Med 2009, 37:949-954.
• [13]Mallon WJ, Brown HR, Vogler JB 3rd, Martinez S: Radiographic and geometric anatomy of the scapula. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1992, 27:142-154.
• [14]Iannotti JP, Gabriel JP, Schneck SL, Evans BG, Misra S: The normal glenohumeral relationships. An anatomical study of one hundred and forty shoulders. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1992, 74:491-500.
• [15]McPherson EJ, Friedman RJ, An Y, Chokesi R, Dooley RL: Anthropometric study of normal glenohumeral relationships. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 1997, 6:105-112.
• [16]De Wilde LF, Berghs BM, Audenaert E, Sys G, Van Maele GO, Barbaix E: About the variability of the shape of the glenoid cavity. Surg Radiol Anat 2004, 26:54-59.
• [17]Kwon YW, Powell KA, Yum JK, Brems JJ, Iannotti JP: Use of three-dimensional computed tomography for the analysis of the glenoid anatomy. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2005, 14:85-90.
• [18]Ikemoto RY, Cecchia SL, Fujiki EN, Murachovski J, Nascimento LGP: Analysis of glenoid cavity measurements from anatomical samples. Rev Bras Ortop 2005, 40:663-671.
• [19]Kralinger F, Aigner F, Longato S, Rieger M, Wambacher M: Is the bare spot a consistent landmark for shoulder arthroscopy? A study of 20 embalmed glenoids with 3-dimensional computed tomographic reconstruction. Arthroscopy 2006, 22:428-432.
• [20]Huysmans PE, Haen PS, Kidd M, Dhert WJ, Willems JW: The shape of the inferior part of the glenoid: a cadaveric study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2006, 15:759-763.
• [21]Aigner F, Longato S, Fritsch H, Kralinger F: Anatomical considerations regarding the “bare spot” of the glenoid cavity. Surg Radiol Anat 2004, 26:308-311.
• [22]Lo IK, Parten PM, Burkhart SS: The inverted pear glenoid: an indicator of significant glenoid bone loss. Arthroscopy 2004, 20:169-174.
• [23]Burkhart SS, De Beer JF, Barth JR, Cresswell T, Roberts C, Richards DP: Results of modified Latarjet reconstruction in patients with anteroinferior instability and significant bone loss. Arthroscopy 2007, 23:1033-1041.
• [24]Young DC, Rockwood CA Jr: Complications of a failed Bristow procedure and their management. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1991, 73:969-981.
• [25]Pagnani MJ: Open capsular repair without bone block for recurrent anterior shoulder instability in patients with and without bony defects of the glenoid and/or humeral head. Am J Sports Med 2008, 36:1805-1812.
• [26]Arrigoni P, Huberty D, Brady PC, Weber IC, Burkhart SS: The value of arthroscopy before an open modified latarjet reconstruction. Arthroscopy 2008, 24:514-519.
• [27]Fujiki EN, Yamaguchi EN, Miachiro E, Chikude T, Ikemoto RY, de Abreu LC, Valenti VE, Rodrigues LM, Monteiro CB, Milani C: Tomographic index as auxiliary criteria for surgery indication in fracture dislocation of acetabulum posterior wall. Int Arch Med 2012, 5:18. BioMed Central Full Text
• [28]Fernani DC, Prado MTA, Fell RF, dos Reis NL, Bofi TC, Ribeiro EB, Blake MT, Monteiro CBM: Motor intervention in children with school learning difficulties. J Hum Growth Developm 2013, 23:209-214.