Search

Background: The purpose of this study was to assess the clinical and radiographic outcomes of arthroscopic anatomic glenoid reconstruction (AAGR) used for primary vs. revision surgery for addressing anterior shoulder instability with bone loss., Methods: We performed a retrospective review on consecutive patients who underwent AAGR from 2012 to 2020. Patients who received AAGR for anterior shoulder instability with bone loss and had a minimum follow-up of 2 years were included. Exclusion criteria included patients with incomplete primary patient-reported outcome scores (PROs), multidirectional instability, glenoid fracture, nonrigid fixation and concomitant humeral avulsion of the glenohumeral ligament, or rotator cuff repair. Our primary outcome was measured using the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI) scores. Secondary outcomes included postoperative Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire (DASH) scores, complications, recurrence of instability and computed tomographic (CT) evaluation of graft position, resorption, and healing., Results: There were 73 patients (52 primary and 21 revision) finally included. Both groups had comparable demographics and preoperative WOSI and DASH scores. The primary group had significantly better postoperative WOSI and DASH scores at final follow-up when compared to the revision group (WOSI: 21.0 vs. 33.8, P = .019; DASH: 7.3 vs. 17.2, P = .001). The primary group also showed significantly better WOSI scores than the revision group at the 6-month, 1-year, and 2-year time points (P = .029, .022, and .003, respectively). The overall complication rate was 9.6% (5 of 52) in the primary group and 23.8% (5 of 21) in the revision group. Both groups showed good graft healing and placement in the anterior-to-posterior and mediolateral orientation and had a similar rate of graft resorption and remodeling. There was no difference between the groups in the remainder of the CT measurements., Conclusion: Functional outcome scores and stiffness were significantly worse in patients undergoing an AAGR procedure after a failed instability surgery when compared with patients undergoing primary AAGR. There were no differences in postoperative recurrence of instability or radiographic outcomes. As a result, AAGR should be considered as a primary treatment option within current treatment algorithms for shoulder instability., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The indications for bone block augmentation of the glenoid following recurrent anterior shoulder instability are expanding. Arthroscopic anatomic glenoid reconstruction (AAGR) is an evolving technique with similar clinical results to the Latarjet procedure and other open bone block procedures. Multiple types of bone grafts and fixation techniques have been described, with varying results on bony integration, resorption, articular congruity, and recurrence rates. This review focuses on biomechanics, patient workup, indications, current evidence, and the authors' preferred surgical technique for AAGR., Competing Interests: Disclosure There are no commercial or financial conflicts of interest to disclose. There are no funding sources for any of the authors., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR) has been accepted as a standard procedure for anterior shoulder instability with a minimum or no glenoid bone loss and an on-track Hill-Sachs lesion if present. However, several controversies exist in the surgical treatment of anterior shoulder instability. This article will discuss some of these controversies in, "simple," dislocations (without bone loss) as well as, "complex," (with critical bone loss). Determining which patients will benefit from an arthroscopic procedure depends on multiple factors including age, activity level, adequate determination of bone loss, performed with feasible and reliable imaging techniques. In the absence of concomitant significant bony and soft tissue pathology, ABR alone can provide satisfactory clinical results on a long-term basis. Controversies, including whether to remove cartilage from the edge of the glenoid, knotted versus knotless anchors, and routine rotator interval closure, still exist. In cases with significant bone loss, several bone restoring procedures have been described, such as, the Latarjet procedure, iliac crest bone graft, arthroscopic anatomic glenoid reconstruction with a frozen distal tibial allograft, and fresh distal tibial allograft reconstruction. This article will address these controversies and provide guidance based on available published data., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Raffy Mirzayan, MD reports a relationship with Arthrex Inc that includes: speaking and lecture fees. Ivan Wong reports a relationship with DePuy Mitek Inc that includes: consulting or advisory and speaking and lecture fees. Ivan Wong reports a relationship with Smith and Nephew Inc that includes: consulting or advisory and speaking and lecture fees. Ivan Wong reports a relationship with CONMED Corp that includes: consulting or advisory and speaking and lecture fees. Ivan Wong reports a relationship with Stryker Orthopaedics that includes: consulting or advisory and speaking and lecture fees. Ivan Wong reports a relationship with Arthrex Inc that includes: consulting or advisory. Ivan Wong reports a relationship with Bioventus LLC that includes: speaking and lecture fees., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)